3 ms·

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

• kakacik 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • operatingthetan 7mo ago
    That is not remotely ad hominem. I'd suggest you refresh your understanding.
  • alwa 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
        [deleted]