4 ms·

Despite what some in the tech space might think, I'm not sure I can lay the blame 100 % on the lawyer. It's true that this is definitely malpractice and they s

by rcbdev 3y ago

Despite what some in the tech space might think, I'm not sure I can lay the blame 100 % on the lawyer. It's true that this is definitely malpractice and they should have known better, it's also true that big tech for years overplayed their hand with the marketing of "AI" to laypeople and management, which has created completely unreasonable expectations. As long as OpenAI has a profit motive to make people believe ChatGPT is "right" more often than not they will never blatantly advertise that everything their product generates might be unverifiable garbage, especially in a way everyone will understand and that isn't just a liability footnote.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
Right. I think it's fair to ask whether a reasonable, non-technical person would even know that ChatGPT will hallucinate answers. That is widely known in the tech world (and even still you have people relying on it for work, which blows my mind), but it takes time for that knowledge to get out to the general public. That goes double when vendors are putting out advertising which misleads people (as you pointed out).
- mdp2021 3y ago
  The last time I tried a LLM based chatbot, for testing purposes, was yesterday, and I had fully clear signals of dealing with a moron. First you have a matter of due diligence when using a tool - especially if you are past the age of twelve, especially if you are a professional -, due diligence that will inform you of the boundaries, but then you also have to have clean senses and be able to see things for what they are as they patently show to be such. It is like having empowered masses of people that in real "darwinian", selective contexts would die before being impactful.
quantified 3y ago
The legal peril for using ChatGPT has been well publicized already.
xxs 3y ago
so you are saying the lawyer has been conned? I'd not think twice about her not cross checking her sources.

by rcbdev 3y ago

bigstrat2003 3y ago

Right. I think it's fair to ask whether a reasonable, non-technical person would even know that ChatGPT will hallucinate answers. That is widely known in the tech world (and even still you have people relying on it for work, which blows my mind), but it takes time for that knowledge to get out to the general public. That goes double when vendors are putting out advertising which misleads people (as you pointed out).

mdp2021 3y ago
The last time I tried a LLM based chatbot, for testing purposes, was yesterday, and I had fully clear signals of dealing with a moron. First you have a matter of due diligence when using a tool - especially if you are past the age of twelve, especially if you are a professional -, due diligence that will inform you of the boundaries, but then you also have to have clean senses and be able to see things for what they are as they patently show to be such. It is like having empowered masses of people that in real "darwinian", selective contexts would die before being impactful.

quantified 3y ago

The legal peril for using ChatGPT has been well publicized already.

xxs 3y ago

so you are saying the lawyer has been conned? I'd not think twice about her not cross checking her sources.