ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
43% Positive
Analyzed from 653 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#process#should#same#https#report#case#why#archive#made#irrelevant
Discussion (13 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
It should be globally a standard check to verify incoming documents and to determine their validity.
The interesting part on this case is that we see the real human aspect of it. Just asking for a report only finding the positive facts instead of doing real research.
That is an ethics question. When behaving like this (and it happened before LLM’s) it should be seen as an ethics violation. If not done there is no value in those legal procedures anymore.
The facts people have to accept is that the only place to check this is the deliverable. They are lucky now to have found the source, the prompts and the background but so many reports are entered without being so obvious.
It’s a terribly huge and complicated task.
Nonsense, almost all answers have value based on how they were reached, especially when (like this case) there's no trivial and objective verification step.
For example, suppose you live next to a volcano, and I sell you some software that predicts when it will erupt. One day you dig into it and realize I just hard-coded "not today" [0] which is 99.999% accurate.
Why would you be angry at me if "not today" is correct, and "how it's made is irrelevant to the process?"
Tying it back to the court case, we expect professional witnesses to look at the details and then reach a conclusion, rather than pick a conclusion and try to make the details fit. Even if they render the same boolean verdict, we care about what process was taken.
[0] https://xkcd.com/221/
> During discovery in the case, Will Moye, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, found a five-page document called “Citation Overlay,” which appeared to have been generated by AI. Moye recognized the Citation Overlay document as being from ChatGPT, and demanded all of the prompts Autenrieth used from 3M’s lawyers. The deposition was paused for three hours while they were gathered, and Moye was given 350 pages of ChatGPT conversations that Autenrieth had when creating the report.
Many paywalls are fairly "soft", and can be got around by visiting an archived version of the page you're interested in, at https://archive.is.
I personally know people who ask chatgpt what to eat, to which bar to go, to plan their vacations, it's insanity.
(I couldn’t remember the title or the author. So I asked claude for it of course)
Then again, I don’t think I’ve ever really needed help being happy - I’d be curious to hear its suggestions, but I’m not sure what it could tell me that I didn’t already know - and further, there would likely be plenty of times where it would make more sense to do the thing that doesnt bring me the most happiness. “Flex your arm by 35%” just doesn’t sound like a plausibly compelling suggestion, and “the ring is never wrong” is really only useful if my sole goal is to maximize my own happiness.
Seeing these pay-for-opinion "experts" fills me with a deep disgust.
This is exactly what a good lawyer/team does.. they argue against what their client is accused of.
a good prosecutor should be able to dismantle the AI argument the same way they would a human argument. just because its AI generated doesn't mean its a corrupting of the process or cheating..
the process is the same either way, its corrupt or broken the same way either way, it works the same way either way.