We're so cooked
-
@jalefkowit Or like listen to a podcast they were on and then have a Q-A call with them after
@JessTheUnstill I remember Barack Obama saying early in his presidency that the best thing about being president was that you could call the world's leading expert on any subject and be guaranteed they would take your call. Those were the days
-
GF is a lawyer and they have a privacy/confidentiality-strict AI-for-lawyers service they use. She has ADHD so she finds using that is a helpful tool to overcome her executive dysfunction, but she is careful to review every single thing it spits out.
She DOES enjoy feeding suspicious materials received from opposing council into it to see if THEY used AI to make their stuff. What's super fun is when opposition used an LLM that injected OBVIOUS mistakes, then exploiting those mistakes in courtroom proceedings.
"Your honor, opposing council <blah something flaw/mistake>"
"What? thats not what we're talking about. like at all."
"Oh really, its on page x of <document>"
<frantic page shuffling>
"Oh, well that's obviously a mistake, meant-"
<judge> You DID reviewe these submissions did you not?
"Ah.. well.. I uh... see, I may have used a Chatbot to put the finish touches on a few things"Yeah, judges really hate that. The ensuing bench smackdown is cathartic.
-
@JessTheUnstill I remember Barack Obama saying early in his presidency that the best thing about being president was that you could call the world's leading expert on any subject and be guaranteed they would take your call. Those were the days
@jalefkowit How wild would it be to just be like - "I heard about Neil the Seal on TikTok. Can I talk to one of the people who monitors him?" And the next day, even though it's the middle of the night in Tasmania, you'd have That Guy eagerly telling you all about elephant seals.
-
GF is a lawyer and they have a privacy/confidentiality-strict AI-for-lawyers service they use. She has ADHD so she finds using that is a helpful tool to overcome her executive dysfunction, but she is careful to review every single thing it spits out.
She DOES enjoy feeding suspicious materials received from opposing council into it to see if THEY used AI to make their stuff. What's super fun is when opposition used an LLM that injected OBVIOUS mistakes, then exploiting those mistakes in courtroom proceedings.
"Your honor, opposing council <blah something flaw/mistake>"
"What? thats not what we're talking about. like at all."
"Oh really, its on page x of <document>"
<frantic page shuffling>
"Oh, well that's obviously a mistake, meant-"
<judge> You DID reviewe these submissions did you not?
"Ah.. well.. I uh... see, I may have used a Chatbot to put the finish touches on a few things"Yeah, judges really hate that. The ensuing bench smackdown is cathartic.
@FediThing @jalefkowit and yes, when she needs to, she has a rolodex of experts on a variety of subjects that are germane to her field of litigation. Getting expert testimony is so much easier and cooler than asking ChatGPT. And you get to have an expert come into court and rip apart the hallucinated papers that ChatGPT cooked up.
So the answer to your question really is: A: lazy. They're fucking lazy.
-
@virtualbri Always blazing new trails in ignorance, our Tommy
@jalefkowit I dunno, I bet ChatGPT is right more often than Tommy's instincts.
-
Brother Tommy. YOU ARE A UNITED STATES SENATOR. If you want to talk to an expert on literally anything, you can just ask your staff to get a real one on the phone
@jalefkowit 2024 was the year I had a manager who ignored his entire team and just talked to his ChatGPT app for the entirety of quarterly planning
-
@FediThing I think this really reveals how these people look at experts. They don’t know what the expert is saying, they just vibe with it. It’s not like they have enough knowledge or expertise to say “wait, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong…”
Nodding along to vague, confident, expert sounding speech is how they interact with a lot of the world. That is, when they’re not producing vague, confident, expert-sounding speech themselves.
-
If *I* was a U.S. Senator, I would spend all day every day calling up experts on things to talk to them. I wouldn't remain a U.S. Senator for very long, but it would be a fun six years
@jalefkowit I could see myself calling up @dantheclamman once a week for 312 hours of clam and other molluscan facts over my term. Like, did the common ancestor of bivalves and gastropods have a radula which the former lost, or did the latter evolve it after the split? You know, information important to know for purposes of national defense.
-
Brother Tommy. YOU ARE A UNITED STATES SENATOR. If you want to talk to an expert on literally anything, you can just ask your staff to get a real one on the phone
A real one might tell him something he doesn't want to hear, and might not be perfectly sycophantic. So that's no good.
-
@FediThing @jalefkowit and yes, when she needs to, she has a rolodex of experts on a variety of subjects that are germane to her field of litigation. Getting expert testimony is so much easier and cooler than asking ChatGPT. And you get to have an expert come into court and rip apart the hallucinated papers that ChatGPT cooked up.
So the answer to your question really is: A: lazy. They're fucking lazy.
@tezoatlipoca @FediThing @jalefkowit I'm very pessimistically anticipating that one day or another that will be the opposite: you'll come with a real expert and the judge will factcheck him/her with ChatGPT and that will be the end of any trust we can have in this system.
-
There's half a population, in this country, that believes in angles. Getting them to believe in a Deus Ex Machina isn't a leap.
I think we've _been_ cooked. We're just noticing the acceleration.
---
Separate or orthogonal thought:
Tommy Tuberville is a fucking idiot. This is just one of _many_ of the public examples.
@401matthall
Believing in angles doesn't make someone obtuse. It can be a cute thing. How would you even have had that orthogonal thought without?
@jalefkowit
