I do not use AI in my legal work.
-
@neil What concerns me is the potential for a grave miscarriage of Justice occurring when AI is used (or its attempted use) in a legal case.
-
@Scmbradley @neil I would love some legal advice from your six year old on something. Last weekend I participated in a tea party with my niece and a few of her dolls. Out of nowhere she threw a cup of boiling hot imaginary tea all over me, giving my imaginary burns. I had to have a doctor (who looked suspiciously like my niece) put a bandage on my head. Do I have grounds to sue?
There are some genuinely fascinating parallels there with interactions in online worlds, and the extent to which offences against a person can apply in an online environment.
This book is now a little dated, but it is well worth reading:
-
It is fun, isn't it, as a "mal function" - a "bad function" - could indeed be commonplace!
I guess I just feel that the language of "hallucination" plays into the anthropomorphism of this kind of tool.
-
I do not use AI in my legal work.
Some of my clients use AI.
I saw an AI output this morning, purporting to give information about data protection law (whether an IP address is personal data).
It included two cases, which do not exist. It did not include any case law which does exist. It gave no warning that the output was fiction.
Even if they can get over the ethical concerns (which, currently, I cannot), it would be cheaper, probably more fun, and no less inaccurate to ask a passing toddler.
My wife calls AI "Drunk Uncle as a Service"
-
@neil The company I work for trialled several AIs (glorified predictive text generators) for software development. They hallucinated, would often break one thing to fix another, made things up when they didn't know the answer, and used old, outdated concepts. We've now banned AI on all client projects.
@manchestermelly @neil Is this company hiring?
-
@neil The company I work for trialled several AIs (glorified predictive text generators) for software development. They hallucinated, would often break one thing to fix another, made things up when they didn't know the answer, and used old, outdated concepts. We've now banned AI on all client projects.
@manchestermelly @neil that sounds no different from throwing junior devs at the problem without adult supervision or enough test coverage.
-
I do not use AI in my legal work.
Some of my clients use AI.
I saw an AI output this morning, purporting to give information about data protection law (whether an IP address is personal data).
It included two cases, which do not exist. It did not include any case law which does exist. It gave no warning that the output was fiction.
Even if they can get over the ethical concerns (which, currently, I cannot), it would be cheaper, probably more fun, and no less inaccurate to ask a passing toddler.
-
I do not use AI in my legal work.
Some of my clients use AI.
I saw an AI output this morning, purporting to give information about data protection law (whether an IP address is personal data).
It included two cases, which do not exist. It did not include any case law which does exist. It gave no warning that the output was fiction.
Even if they can get over the ethical concerns (which, currently, I cannot), it would be cheaper, probably more fun, and no less inaccurate to ask a passing toddler.
@neil I’ve been using AI to help me understand a complex legal case lately, although it is because legal experts are too expensive and I’d totally fail by myself. As an autistic person it’s simply too much data to parse unaided. If a person has money I’d always say “find a solicitor”, but in my case it’s that or nothing it seems. Nobody has capacity either.
-
@neil I’ve been using AI to help me understand a complex legal case lately, although it is because legal experts are too expensive and I’d totally fail by myself. As an autistic person it’s simply too much data to parse unaided. If a person has money I’d always say “find a solicitor”, but in my case it’s that or nothing it seems. Nobody has capacity either.
-
-
@silverwizard @neil I’m saying in my case it’s either use AI to try to make sense of something, or totally give up. Enough of it is correct when it’s a simple question. I of course value solicitors, but try finding one who will help someone who lives on benefits and has a disability that makes communication more difficult. Literally nobody wants to help.
-
Ethical concerns butter no parsnips, it seems.
And getting the message across that the output of AI is unreliable, and not "better than nothing", is difficult.
So I asked for another small experiment, with another, ostensibly simple, non-legal, query.
The problem was incredibly obvious. This wasn't legal nuance, or a mistyped citation. Just utter nonsense.
"Fancy relying on this for anything now", I wondered...
The obvious improvement is for the LLM to insist that it is right and that #1 attempt is a good representation of a donkey.
At the very least computer display manufacturers and anger management course providers will be better off.
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
