Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. We're so cooked

We're so cooked

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
26 Indlæg 16 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • tezoatlipoca@mas.toT This user is from outside of this forum
    tezoatlipoca@mas.toT This user is from outside of this forum
    tezoatlipoca@mas.to
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #17

    @FediThing @jalefkowit

    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.

    tezoatlipoca@mas.toT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • jalefkowit@hachyderm.ioJ jalefkowit@hachyderm.io

      @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

      jesstheunstill@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jesstheunstill@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jesstheunstill@infosec.exchange
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #18

      @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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • tezoatlipoca@mas.toT tezoatlipoca@mas.to

        @FediThing @jalefkowit

        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.

        tezoatlipoca@mas.toT This user is from outside of this forum
        tezoatlipoca@mas.toT This user is from outside of this forum
        tezoatlipoca@mas.to
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #19

        @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.

        dwalin_7@piaille.frD 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • jalefkowit@hachyderm.ioJ jalefkowit@hachyderm.io

          @virtualbri Always blazing new trails in ignorance, our Tommy

          bradwilson@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
          bradwilson@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
          bradwilson@mastodon.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #20

          @jalefkowit I dunno, I bet ChatGPT is right more often than Tommy's instincts. 😆

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • jalefkowit@hachyderm.ioJ jalefkowit@hachyderm.io

            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

            flyingsaceur@ioc.exchangeF This user is from outside of this forum
            flyingsaceur@ioc.exchangeF This user is from outside of this forum
            flyingsaceur@ioc.exchange
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #21

            @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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • paco@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
              paco@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
              paco@infosec.exchange
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #22

              @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.

              @jalefkowit

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • jalefkowit@hachyderm.ioJ jalefkowit@hachyderm.io

                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

                jmccyoung@mstdn.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                jmccyoung@mstdn.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                jmccyoung@mstdn.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #23

                @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.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • jalefkowit@hachyderm.ioJ jalefkowit@hachyderm.io

                  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

                  perrin42@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                  perrin42@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                  perrin42@mastodon.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #24

                  @jalefkowit

                  A real one might tell him something he doesn't want to hear, and might not be perfectly sycophantic. So that's no good.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • tezoatlipoca@mas.toT tezoatlipoca@mas.to

                    @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.

                    dwalin_7@piaille.frD This user is from outside of this forum
                    dwalin_7@piaille.frD This user is from outside of this forum
                    dwalin_7@piaille.fr
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #25

                    @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.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • 401matthall@mastodon.xyz4 401matthall@mastodon.xyz

                      @jalefkowit

                      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.

                      niels@social.data.coopN This user is from outside of this forum
                      niels@social.data.coopN This user is from outside of this forum
                      niels@social.data.coop
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #26

                      @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

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Svar
                      • Svar som emne
                      Login for at svare
                      • Ældste til nyeste
                      • Nyeste til ældste
                      • Most Votes


                      • Log ind

                      • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                      • Login or register to search.
                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      Graciously hosted by data.coop
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Hjem
                      • Seneste
                      • Etiketter
                      • Populære
                      • Verden
                      • Bruger
                      • Grupper