DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
57% Positive
Analyzed from 688 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#court#case#company#system#enough#spader#said#more#lawyer#those
Discussion (37 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
>in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Well that's a contradiction.
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
I am fine with such tooling assisted matters.
I would also be fine with generative AI, with enough tool calls, being used by courts to find commonalities of a certain case in many other cases as a more enhanced search engine with always a judge, lawyer/solicitor, prosecutor, and optional jury, at the helm and being both in control and end responsible.
Right.
Imagine thinking that you can sue a strategically important to the US gov trillion dollar company and win.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
It might be as simple as a clerk doing "select all" and noticing the extra selection?
Or what else?
> these attacks do not seem to be succeeding, even when a judge isn’t reviewing documents with his own eyes. Brazil’s AI system caught the hidden text before it was processed, Spader noted. And in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.