3 ms·
Expert Witness to ChatGPT: "Show how 3M is 0 percent at fault"
- x3n0ph3n3 2mo agoMy father was an expert witness in construction defect and he told me about some of the times he was hired to produce a report about the causes of some defect or failure and that sometimes the entity that hired him was at fault. He usually wasn't retained for trial in those cases, but it earned him a reputation for honesty. Seeing these pay-for-opinion "experts" fills me with a deep disgust.
- suburban_strike 2mo agoMy experience in life has been that when you do employers' dirty work, they will one day hire someone to do the same to you.
- toasty228 2mo agoWe're in the meat proxy era, unplug your brain and feed the machines! I personally know people who ask chatgpt what to eat, to which bar to go, to plan their vacations, it's insanity.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- lucfranken 2mo agoHow it is made should be irrelevant in the process. There is no way to stop people using LLM’s or other tools to create products like this report. It should be globally a standard check to verify incoming documents and to determine their validity. The interesting part on this case is that we see the real human aspect of it. Just asking for a report only finding the positive facts instead of doing real research. That is an ethics question. When behaving like this (and it happened before LLM’s) it should be seen as an ethics violation. If not done there is no value in those legal procedures anymore. The facts people have to accept is that the only place to check this is the deliverable. They are lucky now to have found the source, the prompts and the background but so many reports are entered without being so obvious. It’s a terribly huge and complicated task.
- Terr_ 2mo ago> How it is made should be irrelevant in the process. Is that true? Almost all answers have value based on how they were reached, especially when (like this case) there's no trivial and objective verification step. For example, suppose you live next to a volcano, and I sell you some software that predicts when it will erupt. One day you dig into it and realize I just hard-coded "not today" [0] which is 99.999% accurate. I think you would be quite angry, and justifiably so... But why would that be if "not today" was correct, and "how it's made is irrelevant to the process?" Tying it back to the court case, we expect professional witnesses to look at the details and then reach a conclusion, and to reach out based their own professional expert knowledge of cause and effect... Not to pick a conclusion and try to make the details fit, nor to offload executive function to an LLM. Even if they render the same boolean verdict, we care about what process was taken. [0] https://xkcd.com/221/ https://xkcd.com/221/
- drdaeman 2mo ago“How” as in “what tool” is a different “how” as in “with what intent”. LLM was used to produce a bunch of arguments supporting a pre-intended outcome. Doesn’t matter much whether it was a machine or a human (and whether it was “expert” himself or a ghostwriter), but it does matter - a lot - how the outcome was the pre-selected and the task was to cherry-pick the facts to support it.
- Terr_ 2mo ago> LLM was used to produce a bunch of arguments [...] Doesn’t matter much whether it was a machine or a human (and whether it was “expert” himself or a ghostwriter) Even ignoring the intent-issue, the process used matters because we don't just care about whether each argument is individually true, we care about which arguments and claims appear at all. Do we trust that the LLM-brain is just as good at bringing up relevant issues as the brain of a human (real) expert? Like the blind men and the elephant [0]: They're not wrong that there one part is like a rope, and one part is like a spear, and one part is like a fan, etc... But we'd vastly prefer "this is a large land mammal". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- fblp 2mo agoThe article is pay walled.. Does it explain why the expert witness shared screenshots of these prompts? Voluntarily or required to?
- meinersbur 2mo agohttps://archive.is/zKgVp https://archive.is/zKgVp > During discovery in the case, Will Moye, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, found a five-page document called “Citation Overlay,” which appeared to have been generated by AI. Moye recognized the Citation Overlay document as being from ChatGPT, and demanded all of the prompts Autenrieth used from 3M’s lawyers. The deposition was paused for three hours while they were gathered, and Moye was given 350 pages of ChatGPT conversations that Autenrieth had when creating the report.
- sph 2mo agoSo he got caught by a keen eye, but could have likely got off scot free, and have his generated report accepted by the court.
- phlummox 2mo agohttps://archive.is/zKgVp https://archive.is/zKgVp Many paywalls are fairly "soft", and can be got around by visiting an archived version of the page you're interested in, at https://archive.is https://archive.is.
- close04 2mo agoOn the other hand archive.is is notorious for not working for many people. I am trapped in an endless reCaptcha loop, being repeatedly asked in Thai or in Japanese or any of these random Asian languages to mark "whatever" in the pictures, or being asked to scan QR codes for something, and so on.
- Semaphor 2mo agoNot to mention that they are actively DDoSing people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today
- jauco 2mo agoObligatory link: the whispering earring https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yvain-thewhisperingearring.html https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/2012-10-03-yva... (I couldn’t remember the title or the author. So I asked claude for it of course)
- mock-possum 2mo agoIt’s a fun idea, I do wonder why the artifact is locked away at the end of the story - what harm could come from it? Then again, I don’t think I’ve ever really needed help being happy - I’d be curious to hear its suggestions, but I’m not sure what it could tell me that I didn’t already know - and further, there would likely be plenty of times where it would make more sense to do the thing that doesnt bring me the most happiness. “Flex your arm by 35%” just doesn’t sound like a plausibly compelling suggestion, and “the ring is never wrong” is really only useful if my sole goal is to maximize my own happiness.
- scotty79 2mo agoIf you let your legal process decide based on rhetoric, you'll have people use AI to generate rhetoric.
- OutOfHere 2mo agoWhy not just bypass the expert and just ask GPT to come to a determination? /s
- senectus1 2mo agoI hate that this is how AI is being used.. but tbh this is a nothing burger... This is exactly what a good lawyer/team does.. they argue against what their client is accused of. a good prosecutor should be able to dismantle the AI argument the same way they would a human argument. just because its AI generated doesn't mean its a corrupting of the process or cheating.. the process is the same either way, its corrupt or broken the same way either way, it works the same way either way.
- Sharlin 2mo agoThis was an EXPERT WITNESS, not an advocate. Though unfortunately (and bizarrely) it appears that in the US, expert witnesses in civil cases can be hired to say whatever the hiring party wants them to say without it being perjury.
- Sharlin 2mo agoThis is also another obvious example of misalignment on the part of ChatGPT. If the thing had any semblance of an actual system of ethics, or emulation thereof, it would refuse requests to try to make facts fit a predetermined conclusion. In a legal case, no less!
- tortasaur 2mo agoDoesn't the entire court system hinge upon both sides attempting to make facts fit a predetermined conclusion?
- Sharlin 2mo agoNo in the case of an expert witness. And ChatGPT is not, should not and can not be party to any legal proceeding. It isn't even remotely ethically sound to help people twist facts for their own purposes.
- tortasaur 2mo agoIt doesn't feel intellectually honest to suggest that expert witnesses are there for any other reason than to promote the case of the side that hired them. They rarely outright lie, but "try to make facts fit a predetermined conclusion" is their job description. They would not be brought to the stand otherwise. I agree that there are ethical problems around helping people twist facts for their own purposes. My point is that everyone in a courtroom except the judge and jury are there to do exactly that. They make the strongest possible case to get their desired outcome from the available facts.
- suburban_strike 2mo agoTruth is relative. The Kuleshov effect exists in reality. You see a solemn man looking at a cup and see a man lost in thought; I see a man irritated that the waitress hasn't returned yet. Courts are all a show. It doesn't prove which side is "right," only who can make a more convincing argument. LLMs are a natural fit. There is no such thing as justice.
- tveita 2mo agoInteresting that he pointed it to the CSB video - those are great explanations for us laymen, but I assume the LLM would prefer a written report. Luckily it's still up https://youtube.com/watch?v=CFVUSDzHL8A https://youtube.com/watch?v=CFVUSDzHL8A I was worried the videos would already be disappearing given Trump's attempts to shut it down https://www.chemicalprocessing.com/safety-security/risk-assessment/news/55296583/chemical-industry-pushes-back-on-trump-plan-to-axe-safety-watchdog https://www.chemicalprocessing.com/safety-security/risk-asse...
- Backslasher 2mo agoI hate the expert for not cleaning up the url before sending it over
- mishellaneous 2mo agofrom the point of view of the judge and society, i guess, what matters, ultimately, is whether the arguments presented for a case hold, not where did they come from -- so it shouldn't matter if ChatGPT was the one that came up with the argument if the argument is good. though one could point out that if one particular method of generating arguments tends to generate arguments that take time to analyse but are often enough pointless, we'd save time by not using them. so assuming that the report will be analysed on its own merits, really, it was 3M who got scammed here, because they paid $475/hr for a guy that was just prompting ChatGPT. i mean, i don't know much about the subject, but that screenshot of the gas detector with the "what am i looking at here"... wow, it looks like i already know enough to be an expert witness. no wonder these people are so drawn to stuff like positive affirmations, when they do make it by faking it.
- jscd 2mo agoI find it very interesting that, from what I understand, the LLM use isn’t actually what’s at issue. It’s really just that he worked backwards, beginning with a conclusion and attempting to find evidence towards that end. The LLM chat logs are just a uniquely astounding piece of evidence towards his incompetence.