I do not use AI in my legal work.
-
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.
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...
-
-
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...
@neil “Dinner ideas”
-
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 indeed saw this one this morning
https://mastodon.green/@davidallengreen/116651806344880118
I wonder if there's actually going to be any severe penalties applied rather than the current stern tut and shaking of head. -
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 In a world where people are happy to put said passing toddler in charge of the nuclear button, so long as they are painted orange...
-
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 would ask my six year old any legal questions you have for half the price of a chatgpt subscription.
-
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...
@neil Gemma 3:4b can't do a donkey either, this was try 4
-
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...
@neil the idea that false information is worse than no information doesn't seem to click for many.
-
@neil the idea that false information is worse than no information doesn't seem to click for many.
@elexia Yes!
I think I saw something, years ago, in the context of flying, and how it was better for a pilot's instruments to fail off, than fail wrong.
-
@neil the idea that false information is worse than no information doesn't seem to click for many.
-
@elexia Yes!
I think I saw something, years ago, in the context of flying, and how it was better for a pilot's instruments to fail off, than fail wrong.
@neil
You might like this article on legal pragmatism in the Peirce tradition:
https://psodmusings.wordpress.com/2024/04/27/introducing-legal-pragmatism/
Peirce introduced abductive reasoning (as opposed to inductive or deductive) informally with his essay "The Law of Mind" from his collection "The Philosophy of Mathematics", but it's taken a long time for formalism to develop. Roger Penrose is also a proponent. It was favoured by expert systems (neurosymbolic AI) but it is not at all handled well by the LLM-based approaches to "AI".
@elexia -
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 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.
-
-
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...
@neil My philosophy has been IF we ignore the ethical concerns then what is the up side of using AI?
Currently AI is a crap shoot on how right it is and even IF AI was accurate 100% of the time the act of using it is making it less likely for people to learn for themselves making it a net negative. I feel like I have noticed similar with people of all ages not being able to navigate without GPS anymore.
So currently there is little to no good reason to use GenAI.
-
@neil I would ask my six year old any legal questions you have for half the price of a chatgpt subscription.
@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?
-
@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?
