6 ms·

This is nothing but speculation written by lawyers in the format of a scientific paper to feign legitimacy. Of course those $500 an hour nitpickers are terrifi

This is nothing but speculation written by lawyers in the format of a scientific paper to feign legitimacy. Of course those $500 an hour nitpickers are terrified of AI because it threatens the exorbitant income of their cartel protected profession.

__loam 9mo ago
Enough people have gotten owned for using these things in court that I think the more likely response is laughing at the ignorance then feeling threatened.
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  1. Get owned in court because you used an LLM that made a poor legal argument. 2. Get owned out of court because you couldn't afford the $100K (minimum) that you have to pay to the lawyer's cartel to even be able to make your argument in front of a judge. I'll take number 1. At least you have a fighting chance. And it's only going to get better. LLMs today are the worst they will ever be, whereas the lawyer's cartel rarely gets better and never cuts its prices.
  - pousada 9mo ago
    Does it cost 100k minimum in the US to get a lawyer? Or am I misunderstanding something?
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      There is no "get a lawyer." You pay by the hour. And there is months to years of procedure before the judge even knows your lawsuit exists.
      - pousada 9mo ago
        And the minimum to file a lawsuit comes out to 100k at standard rates ? Or was it just a random number?
        terminalshort 9mo ago
        It's going to cost you around $100K if you're lucky, and it could be a lot more. That's what I mean. There are no exact numbers because it depends on how many hours of lawyering it takes to get through the endless process and procedure (designed by lawyers, of course) before you ever even go to court. You can't know that in advance. And if the other side has more money than you, they know its to their advantage, so they will try to drag out the process and bleed you dry to gain leverage or even force you to drop the case.
    - __loam 9mo ago
      Many lawyers work on contingency and take a set proportion of the settlement if they win instead of charging hourly.
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        That's assuming you are the one doing the suing and not the one getting sued. And even then, that applies to only very limited types of cases. And even then, the contingency is typically 33% (and sometimes can even eat over 50%) of your damages awarded, so the cost is massive in any case. There is the option of small claims court which is massively cheaper, but it has very low limits for damages, so it's barely worth the effort.
  - chrisjj 9mo ago
    > LLMs today are the worst they will ever be Just wait till you see tomorrow's, trained on the slop fabricated by today's.
DannyBee 9mo ago
Care to actually engage with the text instead of deciding to paint the entire profession with a crappy brush? I guess i'll start with calling two well known law professors "$500 an hour nitpickers" when they don't earn 500 an hour and have been professors for 15+ years (20+ in Jessica's case), so aren't earning anything close to 500 an hour, is not a great start? I don't know if they are nitpickers, i've never taken their classes :) Also, this is an op-ed, not a science paper. Which you'd know if you had bothered to read it at all. You say elsewhere you didn't bother to read anything other than the abstract, because "you didn't need to", so besides being a totally uninformed opinion, complaining about something else being speculation when you are literally speculating on the contents of the paper is pretty ironic. I also find it amazingly humorous given that Jessica's previous papers on IP has been celebrated by HN, in part because she roughly believes copyright/patents as they currently exist are all glorified BS that doesn't help anything, and has written many papers as to why :)
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  I dismiss the paper for 3 reasons: 1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future. 2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome. 3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.) Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is formatted like a scientific paper describing an experimental result I immediately feel I am being manipulated by appeal to authority. And the conflict of interest of the authors is about as irrelevant as pointing out that a paper on why Oxycodone is not addictive is paid for by Perdue Pharma. Perhaps Jessica's papers on IP are respected because they do not suffer from these obvious flaws? I owe the author no deference for the quality of her previous writing nor for her status as a professor.
  - t0bia_s 9mo ago
    3. Same, including press that is no longer unbiased and serve as propaganda of political opinions. One might say that deinstitutionalization is actually good for plurality of opinions (some call it a democracy). If AI cause it, I'm fine with that.
__0x01 9mo ago
> This is nothing but speculation Did you read the paper?
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  It's written in the future tense, so I can safely call it speculation. I've read the abstract which is all I need to decide the full text is not worth my time.
  - DannyBee 9mo ago
    Cool, then we can safely give your comments exactly the same treatment - since they are completely uninformed speculation about a paper you haven't read.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      And you must have read all 40 pages of it, right? Because if not you are a hypocrite. I claim that the Bible is the literal truth. Oh, you haven't read every word of the Bible? Your arguments against me are worthless!
      - DannyBee 9mo ago
        I did actually read all 40 pages of it. I frequently read law journal articles, among with lots of other types of journals and papers. I also used to maintain up to date reading lists of various areas (compiler optimization, for example) because I would read so many of the papers. Let me give you a piece of advice: First, gather facts, then respond. Here you start by sarcastically asserting i wouldn't have read it, but it would generally be better to ask if i read it (fact gathering), and then devise a response based on my answer. Because your assertion is simply wrong, making the rest of it even sillier. As for the strawman about the bible - i'm kinda surprised you are really trying to equate not reading any part of something with not reading every part of something, and really trying to defend what you did here, instead of just owning up to it and moving on. This speaks a lot more about you than anything else. That said - When you make a claim covering that everything in a book is the literal truth, you only have to find a part that is not the literal truth to prove the claim wrong. Which may or may not require reading the entire thing to start (if it turns out your counter-claim is wrong, you at least have to read and find another) In the original comment, you'll note your claim was "This is nothing but speculation" - IE all of the paper is speculation. If we are being accurate, this would require you reading the entire thing to be able to say all of it is speculation. How could you know otherwise? Even if we were being nice, and treat your claim colloquially as meaning "most of it is speculation", this would still require reading some of the paper, which you didn't do either. Perhaps you should just quit while you are behind, and learn that when you screw up, the correct thing to do is say "yeah, i screwed up, i should have read it before saying that", instead of trying to double down on it. Doubling down like this just makes you look worse. As an aside - I was always an avid reader, and very bored in synagogue, so i have read every word of a number of books of the hebrew bible because it was more interesting than paying attention to the sermons.
well_ackshually 9mo ago
Please go to court using only ChatGPT as legal defense, I'd love to see it, it's going to make for great entertainment. The judge a little bit less so. You can criticise the hourly cost of lawyers all you like, and it should be a beautiful demonstration to people like you that no, "high costs means more people go into the profession and lower the costs" is not and has never been a reality. But to think that any AI could ever be efficient in a system such common law, the most batshit insane, inefficient, "rethoric matters more than logic" system is delusional.
- rpdillon 9mo ago
  Yeah, unfortunately, it's the lawyers that are using ChatGPT.
boelboel 9mo ago
Tech workers know it all, no way a non-tech job could be worth anything more than 20 dollars an hour.
- Yizahi 9mo ago
  On one hand you're right that people tend to dismiss complexities of the jobs they are unfamiliar with, including IT crowd. On the other hand when countries feel the need to legislate a new law enforcing writing documents in the human understandable language, one doesn't need to be an expert to suspect there was a systemic rot in those industries. It is totally valid to cry foul when even a parliament is concerned about about reading texts they produce for 500$/h. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/946 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/946 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0054/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0054/latest/...
chrisjj 9mo ago
Threatens income? It promises to reduce costs, which will lift profit.

__loam 9mo ago

Enough people have gotten owned for using these things in court that I think the more likely response is laughing at the ignorance then feeling threatened.

terminalshort 9mo ago
1. Get owned in court because you used an LLM that made a poor legal argument. 2. Get owned out of court because you couldn't afford the $100K (minimum) that you have to pay to the lawyer's cartel to even be able to make your argument in front of a judge. I'll take number 1. At least you have a fighting chance. And it's only going to get better. LLMs today are the worst they will ever be, whereas the lawyer's cartel rarely gets better and never cuts its prices.
- pousada 9mo ago
  Does it cost 100k minimum in the US to get a lawyer? Or am I misunderstanding something?
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    There is no "get a lawyer." You pay by the hour. And there is months to years of procedure before the judge even knows your lawsuit exists.
    - pousada 9mo ago
      And the minimum to file a lawsuit comes out to 100k at standard rates ? Or was it just a random number?
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        It's going to cost you around $100K if you're lucky, and it could be a lot more. That's what I mean. There are no exact numbers because it depends on how many hours of lawyering it takes to get through the endless process and procedure (designed by lawyers, of course) before you ever even go to court. You can't know that in advance. And if the other side has more money than you, they know its to their advantage, so they will try to drag out the process and bleed you dry to gain leverage or even force you to drop the case.
  - __loam 9mo ago
    Many lawyers work on contingency and take a set proportion of the settlement if they win instead of charging hourly.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      That's assuming you are the one doing the suing and not the one getting sued. And even then, that applies to only very limited types of cases. And even then, the contingency is typically 33% (and sometimes can even eat over 50%) of your damages awarded, so the cost is massive in any case. There is the option of small claims court which is massively cheaper, but it has very low limits for damages, so it's barely worth the effort.
- chrisjj 9mo ago
  > LLMs today are the worst they will ever be Just wait till you see tomorrow's, trained on the slop fabricated by today's.

DannyBee 9mo ago

Care to actually engage with the text instead of deciding to paint the entire profession with a crappy brush? I guess i'll start with calling two well known law professors "$500 an hour nitpickers" when they don't earn 500 an hour and have been professors for 15+ years (20+ in Jessica's case), so aren't earning anything close to 500 an hour, is not a great start? I don't know if they are nitpickers, i've never taken their classes :) Also, this is an op-ed, not a science paper. Which you'd know if you had bothered to read it at all. You say elsewhere you didn't bother to read anything other than the abstract, because "you didn't need to", so besides being a totally uninformed opinion, complaining about something else being speculation when you are literally speculating on the contents of the paper is pretty ironic. I also find it amazingly humorous given that Jessica's previous papers on IP has been celebrated by HN, in part because she roughly believes copyright/patents as they currently exist are all glorified BS that doesn't help anything, and has written many papers as to why :)

terminalshort 9mo ago
I dismiss the paper for 3 reasons: 1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future. 2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome. 3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.) Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is formatted like a scientific paper describing an experimental result I immediately feel I am being manipulated by appeal to authority. And the conflict of interest of the authors is about as irrelevant as pointing out that a paper on why Oxycodone is not addictive is paid for by Perdue Pharma. Perhaps Jessica's papers on IP are respected because they do not suffer from these obvious flaws? I owe the author no deference for the quality of her previous writing nor for her status as a professor.
- t0bia_s 9mo ago
  3. Same, including press that is no longer unbiased and serve as propaganda of political opinions. One might say that deinstitutionalization is actually good for plurality of opinions (some call it a democracy). If AI cause it, I'm fine with that.

__0x01 9mo ago

> This is nothing but speculation Did you read the paper?

terminalshort 9mo ago
It's written in the future tense, so I can safely call it speculation. I've read the abstract which is all I need to decide the full text is not worth my time.
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  Cool, then we can safely give your comments exactly the same treatment - since they are completely uninformed speculation about a paper you haven't read.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    And you must have read all 40 pages of it, right? Because if not you are a hypocrite. I claim that the Bible is the literal truth. Oh, you haven't read every word of the Bible? Your arguments against me are worthless!
    - DannyBee 9mo ago
      I did actually read all 40 pages of it. I frequently read law journal articles, among with lots of other types of journals and papers. I also used to maintain up to date reading lists of various areas (compiler optimization, for example) because I would read so many of the papers. Let me give you a piece of advice: First, gather facts, then respond. Here you start by sarcastically asserting i wouldn't have read it, but it would generally be better to ask if i read it (fact gathering), and then devise a response based on my answer. Because your assertion is simply wrong, making the rest of it even sillier. As for the strawman about the bible - i'm kinda surprised you are really trying to equate not reading any part of something with not reading every part of something, and really trying to defend what you did here, instead of just owning up to it and moving on. This speaks a lot more about you than anything else. That said - When you make a claim covering that everything in a book is the literal truth, you only have to find a part that is not the literal truth to prove the claim wrong. Which may or may not require reading the entire thing to start (if it turns out your counter-claim is wrong, you at least have to read and find another) In the original comment, you'll note your claim was "This is nothing but speculation" - IE all of the paper is speculation. If we are being accurate, this would require you reading the entire thing to be able to say all of it is speculation. How could you know otherwise? Even if we were being nice, and treat your claim colloquially as meaning "most of it is speculation", this would still require reading some of the paper, which you didn't do either. Perhaps you should just quit while you are behind, and learn that when you screw up, the correct thing to do is say "yeah, i screwed up, i should have read it before saying that", instead of trying to double down on it. Doubling down like this just makes you look worse. As an aside - I was always an avid reader, and very bored in synagogue, so i have read every word of a number of books of the hebrew bible because it was more interesting than paying attention to the sermons.

well_ackshually 9mo ago

Please go to court using only ChatGPT as legal defense, I'd love to see it, it's going to make for great entertainment. The judge a little bit less so. You can criticise the hourly cost of lawyers all you like, and it should be a beautiful demonstration to people like you that no, "high costs means more people go into the profession and lower the costs" is not and has never been a reality. But to think that any AI could ever be efficient in a system such common law, the most batshit insane, inefficient, "rethoric matters more than logic" system is delusional.

rpdillon 9mo ago
Yeah, unfortunately, it's the lawyers that are using ChatGPT.

boelboel 9mo ago

Tech workers know it all, no way a non-tech job could be worth anything more than 20 dollars an hour.

Yizahi 9mo ago
On one hand you're right that people tend to dismiss complexities of the jobs they are unfamiliar with, including IT crowd. On the other hand when countries feel the need to legislate a new law enforcing writing documents in the human understandable language, one doesn't need to be an expert to suspect there was a systemic rot in those industries. It is totally valid to cry foul when even a parliament is concerned about about reading texts they produce for 500$/h. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/946 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/946 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0054/latest/whole.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0054/latest/...

chrisjj 9mo ago

Threatens income? It promises to reduce costs, which will lift profit.