3 ms·

> I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context. Why is that? I flatter myself that it provides useful co

> I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context. Why is that? I flatter myself that it provides useful content for readers, and there's approximately zero chance that it could ever lead to any kind of malpractice liability. (My perspective might be influenced by the fact that I've done a lot of law-related teaching over the course of my career, for both lawyers and non-lawyers, and have never had even a whisper of an issue on that score.)

singleshot_ 2y ago
Doing this in the message board context: very low risk as you said. Don’t disagree at all. Downside risk: lots of downvotes. Who cares. Doing this in the paid legal advice realm: why not at least ask Westlaw, which your insurance carrier would be less allergic to? Asking a general purpose chat it seems like it’s asking for trouble. Helping people understand the law: pretty cool however biased I may be.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Doing this in the paid legal advice realm We're on the same page: I can't imagine giving paid legal advice without doing the usual research and citing the usual cases, for no other reason than to confirm what I think I know.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    That’s squared up with me. I would not trust myself to second guess Peplexity without researching and at that point why am I messing around slash wrecking a/c priv? But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      > But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work. But they didn't do that, AI did, regardless of good intentions. It was just not a good comment in this instance.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        Would your answer have been different if I'd quoted from — and approved of — say, Wikipedia? or Cornell Law's Legal Information Institute? If not, then your beef is that the comment was drafted by an AI, and only humans should be involved in producing any text that's to appear on HN?
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        I think that’s consistent with my views and my understanding of HN Guidelines and clarifications by Dang, though I don’t speak for HN. The issue to my mind is that AI doesn’t perform reasoning and may give different answers entirely depending on prompts and on sources the AI references, sources that may not be clear to the user or secondary readers. Other sources have the benefit of having had more eyes on the same content. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow kind of thinking.
        dctoedt 2y ago
        So it'd have been OK with you if I'd just posted the Perplexity.ai output — which I thought was a very good summary of the law, and I claim to have at least modest knowledge in this area — without identifying it as an AI output.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dctoedt 2y ago
        > You'd be posting in bad faith, knowing that posting AI output as your own on HN is frowned upon First, you haven't proved up your "frowned upon" premise. It'd be misguided to peremptorily condemn the posting AI-generated answers when they're initiated, and vouched for, by knowledgeable humans. I've been around HN for awhile and am quite skeptical that this is HN policy — if it is, I'd like to hear it from someone official, or at least to get a link to an HN posting. Those who don't like AI-assisted comments are of course free to downvote them. Second, the alternative might be that the original questioner doesn't get an answer, or at least not one with any indicia of reliability — how many responses have you seen that are prefaced by "IANAL"? As I've said, I am a lawyer, I use my real name, and I'm vouching for the AI-generated answer as a general explanation. > Your responses now seem like sealioning. It's not sealioning, it's Socratic method — looking ahead on the chessboard, examining an assertion's logical implications N moves out. That's what lawyers are trained to do from the first day of law school, because it's how legislators, judges, administrators, and their staffs (try to) achieve scalable, sustainable policies and decisions. It's one form of critical thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

singleshot_ 2y ago

Doing this in the message board context: very low risk as you said. Don’t disagree at all. Downside risk: lots of downvotes. Who cares. Doing this in the paid legal advice realm: why not at least ask Westlaw, which your insurance carrier would be less allergic to? Asking a general purpose chat it seems like it’s asking for trouble. Helping people understand the law: pretty cool however biased I may be.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Doing this in the paid legal advice realm We're on the same page: I can't imagine giving paid legal advice without doing the usual research and citing the usual cases, for no other reason than to confirm what I think I know.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  That’s squared up with me. I would not trust myself to second guess Peplexity without researching and at that point why am I messing around slash wrecking a/c priv? But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    > But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work. But they didn't do that, AI did, regardless of good intentions. It was just not a good comment in this instance.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      Would your answer have been different if I'd quoted from — and approved of — say, Wikipedia? or Cornell Law's Legal Information Institute? If not, then your beef is that the comment was drafted by an AI, and only humans should be involved in producing any text that's to appear on HN?
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        I think that’s consistent with my views and my understanding of HN Guidelines and clarifications by Dang, though I don’t speak for HN. The issue to my mind is that AI doesn’t perform reasoning and may give different answers entirely depending on prompts and on sources the AI references, sources that may not be clear to the user or secondary readers. Other sources have the benefit of having had more eyes on the same content. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow kind of thinking.
        dctoedt 2y ago
        So it'd have been OK with you if I'd just posted the Perplexity.ai output — which I thought was a very good summary of the law, and I claim to have at least modest knowledge in this area — without identifying it as an AI output.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dctoedt 2y ago
        > You'd be posting in bad faith, knowing that posting AI output as your own on HN is frowned upon First, you haven't proved up your "frowned upon" premise. It'd be misguided to peremptorily condemn the posting AI-generated answers when they're initiated, and vouched for, by knowledgeable humans. I've been around HN for awhile and am quite skeptical that this is HN policy — if it is, I'd like to hear it from someone official, or at least to get a link to an HN posting. Those who don't like AI-assisted comments are of course free to downvote them. Second, the alternative might be that the original questioner doesn't get an answer, or at least not one with any indicia of reliability — how many responses have you seen that are prefaced by "IANAL"? As I've said, I am a lawyer, I use my real name, and I'm vouching for the AI-generated answer as a general explanation. > Your responses now seem like sealioning. It's not sealioning, it's Socratic method — looking ahead on the chessboard, examining an assertion's logical implications N moves out. That's what lawyers are trained to do from the first day of law school, because it's how legislators, judges, administrators, and their staffs (try to) achieve scalable, sustainable policies and decisions. It's one form of critical thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method