this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
58 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

20 readers
4 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 1 year ago
 

The lawyer said that he had "no idea" ChatGPT could fabricate information and that he "deeply" regretted his decision.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kara@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like a good lawyer should do a tiny bit of research before letting AI write a court brief. At least enough to read the 2 warnings on the ChatGPT site about how it can generate inaccurate information.

[–] withersailor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or, they've done it before and gotten away with it.

[–] SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net 7 points 1 year ago

It's impressive how well ChatGPT hallucinates citations.

I was asking it about a field of law I happen to be quite aware of (as a layman), and it came up with entire sections of laws that didn't exist to support its conclusions.

Large Language Models like ChatGPT are in my view verisimilitude engines. Verisimilitude is the appearance of being true or real. You'll note, however, that it is not being true or real, simply appearing so.

It's trying to make an answer that looks right. If it happens to know the actual answer then that's what it'll go with, but if it doesn't, it'll go with what a correct answer might statistically look like. For fields with actual right and wrong answers like law and science and technology, its tendency to make things up is really harmful if the person using the tool doesn't know it will lie.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

$5k is a horseshit low fine for this.

[–] joeygibson@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this seems like a massive ethics violation that should result in contempt, or referral for disbarment.

[–] Catarinalina@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I'm imagining their lawyer pulling out their wallet at the hearing and thumbing through their singles to pay the fine.

$5k is absolutely nothing for a typical law firm, lunch money

[–] Panko@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s a great LegalEagle video on this, it’s hilarious the level of incompetence required to get to the point where they submitted brief.

[–] NetHandle@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's wild how negligent the lawyer was. How did he manage to pass the bar with that level of work ethic?
You would think that any reasonable person having someone else do their work for them would at least have to good sense to look it over, let alone letting an AI do it for you and not fact checking it at all. What an utter nincompoop.

[–] roo@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There should be a law that AI answers have a cryptic word hidden in plain sight to reveal itself if put to review. Something weird that only AI will pick up.

[–] Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The issue here is that most people will give it at least cursory read throughs, to make sure it passes the sniff test.

The reality is it’s not the ai that’s submitting it. The human is blindly cutting and pasting, but the moment you add “this text was generated by ai”… literally or just as tags… then they’re going to start clipping or adjusting it

[–] Jon-H558@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I saw a YouTube video (sorry can't find the link now) on using hidden weighting to allow exam markers to detect ai. It was things like words with many synonyms always picking the third most popular or somthing so that over a 3 page essay if you happened to use the lightly off weighting on word choice the anti cheating software would pick up on it. The chances of a human weighing themselves that way would be rare as they would tend to work to one of its patterns where as AI was forced to use a few different patterns but in a deterministic way.

[–] huntingrarebits@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Over time, wouldn't you expect as people see more examples of text generated by these systems, that the general usage of the "third most popular" synonym would eventually eclipse the second or first? If the ranking of the synonyms were based solely on written texts, proliferation of generated texts with weighted word choices would also skew usage.