GPT thinks
No, it doesn‘t.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
208 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
74519 readers
3666 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TL;DR:
Lawyer to client: "final bill of $113,484 please".
Judge: "Why?"
Lawyer: "chatGPT said so"
Judge: "lmao no, new bill is now half"
for reasons that included the use of ChatGPT.
I am not a lawyer.
The judge may or may not have said lmao.
it's like a 2min short article,
- I'd recommend reading it just in case I got something wrong.
Judge: "lmao no, new bill is now half" for reasons that included the use of ChatGPT.
Meanwhile the prompt: Given X man-hours at $rate plus expenses of $expenses, and a padding multiplier of 4, generate a legal cost report in the format expected by the court. /s
Reminds me of using graphing calculators back in highschool. "Can we use it on the test?" "Sure! But remember, it will only help you if you know how to check your work and bother to do so." Automating anything blindly carries the risk of unending buckets of water or a universe of paperclips. Trouble is, it seems like a fair number of folks are confusing automation with delegation.
This is why I think the single payer model should be expanded to the judiciary, let the govt haggle over lawyer's fees and let the people have access to justice without needing to pay tens of thousands just for their own lawyer.
This is an idea I had never even thought about before. I like it. I'm going to ponder it for a few days in my slow way.
Honest question: Would someone be able to still hire/use their own attorney in such a system?
I'd imagine it'd be like having your own personal doctor under single payer health care, depending on the system the most you'd have to front at point of service is a small "co-pay", ultimately though you would still be able to "hire" whichever lawyer you think will best represent your judiciary interests.
So we'd end up with a pay-to-win system that's little different from the current system.
I don't know what the answer is - it's certainly not a simple problem.
I mean it's only "Pay to win" in the sense that you need to pay anything at all, and there's still the hospital route where your lawyer is provided for you at time of litigation. The difference is immediacy and regular access, not in being able to access it at all.
A classic misaligment problem. Human wanted a fair wage, AI gave a number that would please the human.
Poly twist: chat gpt used the "whatever you think it's gonna cost and then double it" rule. But it had calculated the cost perfectly.
Lol, based judge.
Sign of things to come?
Yeah this shit is only going to get worse.