4 ms·

Seems like a good bill, at least directionally. If it's a crime to provide advice of this nature without a license, then chat bots shouldn't be dispensing it ei

by fwip 8mo ago

Seems like a good bill, at least directionally. If it's a crime to provide advice of this nature without a license, then chat bots shouldn't be dispensing it either.

bluepeter 8mo ago
This is not directionally good because NY already has laws against unauthorized professional practice and deceptive conduct, and S7263 mainly replaces regulator-led enforcement with a vague, fee-shifting private cause of action that is likely to drive serial plaintiff litigation while chilling useful consumer guidance.
tekne 8mo ago
You've got a license for looking up the law/engineering textbooks/your symptoms, pal?
- kakacik 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - operatingthetan 8mo ago
    That is not remotely ad hominem. I'd suggest you refresh your understanding.
  - alwa 8mo ago
    It seems to me that @tekne is comparing the LLM to a reference source. I took them to be pointing out that unlicensed-practice laws don’t crack down on textbooks, or reading the law for yourself (or even going jailhouse-lawyer or trying to defend yourself in court). Rather, that the laws aim to keep the professional title commercially reliable, so that it indicates to the public that the person using it has proven some minimum level of expertise. So the analysis would turn on whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor, or whatever—not whether it communicated legal or medical facts. Now, to my mind, the facts are the least interesting part of those professions—I pay those professionals precisely for their nuance and judgment and experience beyond the bare facts of a situation. And I think the ChatGPTs of the world do embellish their responses with the kind of confidence and tone that implies nuance/judgment/experience they don’t have. But I do think @tekne was making a valid point.
    - terminalshort 8mo ago
      But that isn't the standard. You said it yourself "whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor" So as long as people don't think that there is a licensed lawyer or doctor on the other end typing out those responses, and they don't, this should be legal.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
bluefirebrand 8mo ago
Yes and since chatbots cannot be held accountable directly their owners must And yes, corporations own their chatbots. They aren't independent life forms
0xy 8mo ago
Ah yes, protectionism for $400/hour lawyers gatekeeping knowledge to protect tenants and abuse victims. Incredible!
_cairn 8mo ago
It’s not illegal to provide advice of this nature without a license. It’s illegal to charge for services where you are advertising expertise in these areas without a license. Chatbots are information tools, like search engines, they should not be held to this standard imho.
- daveguy 8mo ago
  A lot of people are paying money for chatbots with a hype train that says the chatbots are AGI.
- lotu 8mo ago
  Just because you aren't charging money doesn't give you the ability to act as an attorney, doctor, or civil engineer.
articulatepang 8mo ago
Maybe you mean it's a crime to professionally provide advice of this nature without a license? It is generally not a crime to casually provide advice of this nature without a license. For example, if my friend tells me, "My stomach hurts!", it is not a crime for me to say, "Just grin and bear it, it will be okay." If they subsequently die of appendicitis, I'm unlikely to have legal liability. It would be difficult to characterize what I said as medical diagnosis or treatment. Similarly, I can tell my friend, "Don't bother paying your taxes, that is a waste of time." This is legal speech. (Of course, helping them evade taxes is another matter.) What is illegal is to hold oneself out as a licensed doctor, lawyer or engineer, or to provide professional services without a license. Of course, chatbots operate at scale and give the impression of being professionally qualified even though they don't make specific representations to that effect. You're directionally probably right and I agree with you, I just want to nitpick about what is and isn't criminal.
- fwip 8mo ago
  Yeah, exactly. ChatGPT et al provide "advice as a service," and charge up to hundreds of dollars a month for it. (And the free tier is just a loss-leader to make money). If these companies intend to profit off of giving advice, it seems wise to restrict them in the same way we do individuals.
NotGMan 8mo ago
Anyone who has dealt with lawyers and doctors will a lot will tell you how incomptent they can be.

by fwip 8mo ago

Seems like a good bill, at least directionally. If it's a crime to provide advice of this nature without a license, then chat bots shouldn't be dispensing it either.

bluepeter 8mo ago

This is not directionally good because NY already has laws against unauthorized professional practice and deceptive conduct, and S7263 mainly replaces regulator-led enforcement with a vague, fee-shifting private cause of action that is likely to drive serial plaintiff litigation while chilling useful consumer guidance.

tekne 8mo ago

You've got a license for looking up the law/engineering textbooks/your symptoms, pal?

kakacik 8mo ago
[flagged]
- operatingthetan 8mo ago
  That is not remotely ad hominem. I'd suggest you refresh your understanding.
- alwa 8mo ago
  It seems to me that @tekne is comparing the LLM to a reference source. I took them to be pointing out that unlicensed-practice laws don’t crack down on textbooks, or reading the law for yourself (or even going jailhouse-lawyer or trying to defend yourself in court). Rather, that the laws aim to keep the professional title commercially reliable, so that it indicates to the public that the person using it has proven some minimum level of expertise. So the analysis would turn on whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor, or whatever—not whether it communicated legal or medical facts. Now, to my mind, the facts are the least interesting part of those professions—I pay those professionals precisely for their nuance and judgment and experience beyond the bare facts of a situation. And I think the ChatGPTs of the world do embellish their responses with the kind of confidence and tone that implies nuance/judgment/experience they don’t have. But I do think @tekne was making a valid point.
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    But that isn't the standard. You said it yourself "whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor" So as long as people don't think that there is a licensed lawyer or doctor on the other end typing out those responses, and they don't, this should be legal.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]

bluefirebrand 8mo ago

Yes and since chatbots cannot be held accountable directly their owners must And yes, corporations own their chatbots. They aren't independent life forms

0xy 8mo ago

Ah yes, protectionism for $400/hour lawyers gatekeeping knowledge to protect tenants and abuse victims. Incredible!

_cairn 8mo ago

It’s not illegal to provide advice of this nature without a license. It’s illegal to charge for services where you are advertising expertise in these areas without a license. Chatbots are information tools, like search engines, they should not be held to this standard imho.

daveguy 8mo ago
A lot of people are paying money for chatbots with a hype train that says the chatbots are AGI.
lotu 8mo ago
Just because you aren't charging money doesn't give you the ability to act as an attorney, doctor, or civil engineer.

articulatepang 8mo ago

Maybe you mean it's a crime to professionally provide advice of this nature without a license? It is generally not a crime to casually provide advice of this nature without a license. For example, if my friend tells me, "My stomach hurts!", it is not a crime for me to say, "Just grin and bear it, it will be okay." If they subsequently die of appendicitis, I'm unlikely to have legal liability. It would be difficult to characterize what I said as medical diagnosis or treatment. Similarly, I can tell my friend, "Don't bother paying your taxes, that is a waste of time." This is legal speech. (Of course, helping them evade taxes is another matter.) What is illegal is to hold oneself out as a licensed doctor, lawyer or engineer, or to provide professional services without a license. Of course, chatbots operate at scale and give the impression of being professionally qualified even though they don't make specific representations to that effect. You're directionally probably right and I agree with you, I just want to nitpick about what is and isn't criminal.

fwip 8mo ago
Yeah, exactly. ChatGPT et al provide "advice as a service," and charge up to hundreds of dollars a month for it. (And the free tier is just a loss-leader to make money). If these companies intend to profit off of giving advice, it seems wise to restrict them in the same way we do individuals.

NotGMan 8mo ago

Anyone who has dealt with lawyers and doctors will a lot will tell you how incomptent they can be.