657
Remember how ChatGPT totally aced the bar exam? Wow! yeah, turns out that was just a lie (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/techtakes@awful.systems
252 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

archive https://archive.ph/is57b

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

[...W]hen examining only those who passed the exam (i.e. licensed or license-pending attorneys), GPT-4’s performance is estimated to drop to 48th percentile overall, and 15th percentile on essays.

officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now

also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going "LLM's don't work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]". did we hit too many buzzwords?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    I was considering interjecting in there but I don’t want to get it on my clothes, so I’m content just watching from the outside.

    Not great, but I’m also not obligated to teach anyone anything, soooooo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically "average lawyer". I don't need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

    In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn't hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    48th percentile is basically "average lawyer".

    good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests

    I don't need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket.

    because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing "generate"

    And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

    "guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren't working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler"

    In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter

    oh i would love to read those court documents

    and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn't hallucinate

    wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it's legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that's syntactically and legally coherent -- you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea

    what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don't care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute

    they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

    "but the line is going up!! see?! sure we're constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we're spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we're doing it so quickly!!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Spoken like someone who hasn't gotten beyond ChatGPT on default settings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    it's funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be

    but also how dare you -- i'll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    what the fuck kind of reply is this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A reply to a rant based on false premises.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    congratulations on your impending graduation (to expat poster)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I love the anger, the name calling and the downvotes. Keep em coming.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    you’ll love what happens next

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    but then who will we have to laugh at? you're depriving helpless children of an endless supply of twats to sneer -- think of the kids!!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    I near-exclusively use awful from a client only on awful and I can tell you, without reservation, you get a pure enough experience

    By which I, naturally, don’t mean that our mods “don’t do their jobs”. They do. Oh dear god do they. But the visible context is many.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate

    at which point it's just easier to do the right thing straight away, that is pay a lawyer to do their job https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

    Of course it's even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.

    This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    so your process of getting legal advice is:

    1. ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won't be able to judge
    2. then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort

    how does that simplify anything

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!

    [ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

    that's one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i've authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while "getting a list of sources" part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what's relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don't know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices.

    It's a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don't tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent