4 ms·

If the user didn't understand that ChatGPT make up crap sometimes, despite the warnings everywhere about it that they may not read, it could still be a good-fai

• unsupp0rted 3y ago
  If the user is a lawyer who officially referenced a case that a) they never read and b) never existed, then the user can’t be allowed to practice law anymore.
  • CPLX 3y ago
    Every single lawyer references cases they never actually read in every filing.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • averageRoyalty 3y ago
      Then we're discovering together that they all should be disbarred then....
• happymellon 3y ago
  If the user doesn't understand their tool then they should review what it spits out. > I found a guy who claims to have the sum of all knowledge, and I've just copied and pasted code from him that I haven't reviewed. Then either your an idiot and should be disbarred or you are negligent and should be disbarred. As a lawyer you have people's lives in your hands, this is not the time for "woops, sorry I just couldn't be arsed to read what I submitted".
• orangesite 3y ago
  The demo: AI so powerful it's a literal existential risk for humanity! v1.0: You should be disbarred for using our product and assuming the output would make any sense whatsoever.
• corobo 3y ago
  If the user doesn't understand their tools maybe they should delegate to someone that does before they rely on the results Especially if they're a lawyer! Llmao