elicksaur

26 ms·

361.
by elicksaur 4y ago
No idea about the tech planes are using, or their contracts. But that’s a good example of the kind of issue a tech solution, in general, can possibly help with. No attorney has the time to take on such a case because it would be for just a
362.
by elicksaur 4y ago
Attorney here, I think it’s too early stages to run with this tech. It’s not just the confidentially incorrectness people have mentioned. If you ask it for legal citations for an argument, it makes them up because it has no concept of truth
363.
by elicksaur 4y ago
As I understand that paper, I would take issue that the LLM isn’t “doing” math at all. Look at Figure 4 for the process to be most clear. It’s generating a text program that when run via Python can solve the problem. All the LLM is doing is
364.
by elicksaur 4y ago
We have different definitions of pretty well. It can’t do basic math consistently.
365.
by elicksaur 4y ago
One of your examples is the key: “attempt” explaining jokes. Really, it’s “attempting” to do all of the items you list, and can seemingly do only very simple ones. Try and get it to produce a poem that doesn’t rhyme. Try to get it to be int
366.
by elicksaur 4y ago
Such a milestone would say more about the Bar Exam (and other standardized tests) being a poor proxy for wisdom, than the advancement of computers.
367.
by elicksaur 4y ago
It has no concept of lying.
368.
by elicksaur 4y ago
No, you are probably right. It has no guardrails for generating a true citation. When you ask it for citations, its programming generates the form of citation. As the authors of the article discuss, it has no model of reality to understand