5 ms·

FTC overreached here: the AI was not tested to see if it is like a lawyer’s level of work. Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? Back in the day, a

FTC overreached here: the AI was not tested to see if it is like a lawyer’s level of work. Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? Back in the day, anyone who touted AI generated works by default exclaimed that the work was not as good as a human. That changed now but was a valid statement back then.

lupusreal 2y ago
> Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? Because the company chose to publish ads with misleading claims about the efficacy of their system.
snakeyjake 2y ago
I have not seen any evidence that AI output can reach quality levels of a human. Any non-trivial code generated by it takes more time to debug than just writing it from scratch. Its "art" is abominably bad and repetitive. Text generated by AI reads like corporate ad copy written by several committees of committees. "Lovecraftian nightmare" best describes its video output. AI voice generation sounds like soulless ripoffs of famous voice actors (the Attenborough clone is the worst) with misplaced stresses and an off-putting cadence derived from being completely unable to understand the broader context of the work it is narrating. Its explanations on things are inferior to the first paragraph of any wikipedia article on the query topic. A child with a pirated copy of FL-Studio can make more interesting music. The wall being erected by AI customer service agents between a problem and an actual human who might be able to solve it is frustrating and useless. On top of all of that the answers it confidently gives (almost always with no sources) are often extremely wrong. Is there a secret AI product everyone is using that is actually good? Edit: AI is however extremely good at rapidly creating an endless stream of barely-passable content designed to distract very cheaply so I expect its use by marketing and social media firms to continue its meteoric rise.
- faangguyindia 2y ago
  > it's not about trivial vs not trivial. It's about how common the code is which you are asking the AI to generate and how much contextual clues it has to get the generation right.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The Dagoth Ur voice generation is shockingly good. I found a youtube channel of Dagoth Ur narrating Lovecraft stories; it's as good as human narration IMHO.
summermusic 2y ago
Yeah why would any company have to test the efficacy of their product before making claims about its efficacy? Snark aside, this is literally a quote from their marketing: "what this robot lawyer can do is astonishingly similar—if not more—to what human lawyers do." So to claim that they “exclaimed that the work was not as good as a human” is inaccurate.
dogleash 2y ago
>AI was not tested to see if it is like a lawyer’s level of work. Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? The service it purported to offer is licensed. We could sit around and talk shit about the threshold to be licensed, the bar association, or licensing in general. But that's all distraction. The point is the legal system has implemented a quality standard for providing certain services. There is a new thing providing the same service in novel way. Why wouldn't the legal system expect proof of quality?

lupusreal 2y ago

> Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? Because the company chose to publish ads with misleading claims about the efficacy of their system.

snakeyjake 2y ago

I have not seen any evidence that AI output can reach quality levels of a human. Any non-trivial code generated by it takes more time to debug than just writing it from scratch. Its "art" is abominably bad and repetitive. Text generated by AI reads like corporate ad copy written by several committees of committees. "Lovecraftian nightmare" best describes its video output. AI voice generation sounds like soulless ripoffs of famous voice actors (the Attenborough clone is the worst) with misplaced stresses and an off-putting cadence derived from being completely unable to understand the broader context of the work it is narrating. Its explanations on things are inferior to the first paragraph of any wikipedia article on the query topic. A child with a pirated copy of FL-Studio can make more interesting music. The wall being erected by AI customer service agents between a problem and an actual human who might be able to solve it is frustrating and useless. On top of all of that the answers it confidently gives (almost always with no sources) are often extremely wrong. Is there a secret AI product everyone is using that is actually good? Edit: AI is however extremely good at rapidly creating an endless stream of barely-passable content designed to distract very cheaply so I expect its use by marketing and social media firms to continue its meteoric rise.

faangguyindia 2y ago
> it's not about trivial vs not trivial. It's about how common the code is which you are asking the AI to generate and how much contextual clues it has to get the generation right.
lupusreal 2y ago
The Dagoth Ur voice generation is shockingly good. I found a youtube channel of Dagoth Ur narrating Lovecraft stories; it's as good as human narration IMHO.

summermusic 2y ago

Yeah why would any company have to test the efficacy of their product before making claims about its efficacy? Snark aside, this is literally a quote from their marketing: "what this robot lawyer can do is astonishingly similar—if not more—to what human lawyers do." So to claim that they “exclaimed that the work was not as good as a human” is inaccurate.

dogleash 2y ago

>AI was not tested to see if it is like a lawyer’s level of work. Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? The service it purported to offer is licensed. We could sit around and talk shit about the threshold to be licensed, the bar association, or licensing in general. But that's all distraction. The point is the legal system has implemented a quality standard for providing certain services. There is a new thing providing the same service in novel way. Why wouldn't the legal system expect proof of quality?