- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
“We made a good faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth,” the firm’s statement said.
good faith mistake my ass, you should be disbarred for doing something like that.
They haven’t been disbarred yet? LegalEagle did a hilarious episode about these back when it happened. They were lazy and extremely dumb. Once the judge asked for clarification about the missing cases, they used chatgpt again to make up fictional details about the cases.
It’s kinda weird I was toying with the bing version just asking silly questions really and asked it who would win between two current wrestlers. Refused to answer saying it was an unfair comparison because they were from different eras.
Pointed out they were both current it said sorry you are right but still refused me an answer and ended the conversation on me trying again.
I get the impression that is just Bing’s way of handling conflicts. I noticed if I correct it, ChatGPT will usually apologize and agree with what I say, while Bing will say it doesn’t want to talk about it anymore and make you start a new conversation
Perhaps it was some sort of “ethics” avoidance thinking you were trying to use it for betting purposes?
Yeah it was weird still though because it was answering similar questions beforehand and it actually did a search before acknowledging it was incorrect.
I think it probably can admit it was wrong but is still limited to it’s first decision.
I think if you tell it it is wrong it will always agree with you (regardless how right it might have been, or otherwise). Presumably it is designed that way so it is always non-confrontational.
Since the AI does not have opinions of its own and lacks the ability to tell fantasy from fact, a human can usually convince an AI that just about anything is true, if they are allowed to argue long enough. The easiest way to make sure this does not happen is to prevent the argument from taking place, either by locking the AI into a safety response or by shutting down.
deleted by creator
tbf the guy used it in pretty much the worst way possible. He basically bludgeoned it into making up some answers for him, dude wouldn’t take no for an answer.
Repeat after me: ChatGPT is a language model not a digital librarian.
LegalEagle did a good breakdown: https://youtu.be/oqSYljRYDEM
A good point is like lawyers are supposed to read the cases they cite. So the fact that the article states that the guilty party disagreed with AI usage is besides the point.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/oqSYljRYDEM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
