“It's striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening to think that members of the bar would forward cases to a court that don't exist, and to think that the lawyers on the other side of that didn’t read it for whatever reason, didn’t check it.”
  • rozodru@piefed.worldEnglish
    5·
    35 minutes ago

    remember kids GIGO “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.

    the general public just isn’t aware of this. they assume that anything and everything an LLM spits out is fact. Again, the LLM/AI MUST provide a solution. any solution. that solution doesn’t need to be correct or even exist but in order to retain users it will and will consistently and constantly provide a hallucinated solution.

    And in most cases, without their knowledge, the user is also to blame. I can see a lawyer asking an LLM “are there any cases where such and such happened” trying to find something INCREDIBLY specific to what they need and the LLM 8 times out of 10 will say “yes! there is!” and hallucinate a case that the lawyer needs. You see it all the time if you ask Claude with assistance in trouble shooting a specific tech or code problem. “I’m having issues with this and this, can this library or app or program solve this for me?” “Yes! here’s how” and then will tell you something the library or program or whatever can’t even do but you’ve lead it to that direction and it MUST provide a positive retention-able solution.

    Even using AI as it SHOULD be used is no longer good. just using it as a sort of rubber duck doesn’t help anymore because of GIGO. the training data, across ALL LLMs, is so tainted now you might as well take all the money we’re wasting on data centers and tokens and just toss it at the crazy dude outside the bus station and just ask them the same questions.

  • Toto@lemmy.worldEnglish
    47·
    4 hours ago

    Good. Get the lawyers irritated about the unapologetic use of AI. Maybe their congressional pals will listen to them