Dutch lawyers increasingly have to convince clients that they can’t rely on AI-generated legal advice because chatbots are often inaccurate, the Financieele Dagblad (FD) found when speaking to several lawfirms. A recent survey by Deloitte showed that 60 percent of lawfirms see clients trying to perform simple legal tasks with AI tools, hoping to achieve a faster turnaround or lower fees.
Yeah well same applies for a lot of tools… I’m not certified for flying a plane and look at me not flying one either… but I’m not shitting on planes…
But planes don’t routinely spit out false information.
I understand what you mean, but… looks at Birgenair 301 and Aeroperu 603 looks at Qantas 72 looks at the 737 Max 8 crashes Planes have spat out false data, and in of the 5 cases mentioned, only one avoided disaster.
It is down to the humans in the cockpits to filter through the data and know what can be trusted. Which could be similar to LLMs except cockpits have a two person team to catch errors and keep things safe.
So you found five examples in the history of human aviation, how often do you think AI hallucinates information? Because I can guarantee you its a hell of a lot more frequently than that.
You should check out Air Crash Investigation, amigo, all 26 seasons, you’d be surprised what humans in metal life support machines can cause when systems breakdown.
I’m not watching 26 seasons of a TV show ffs, I’ve got better things to do with my time. Skimming the IMBD though, I’m seeing a lot of different causes for the crashes, from bad weather, to machine failure, to running out of fuel, improper maintenance, pilot errors, etc. Remember, my point had nothing to do with mechanical failure. Any machine can fail. My point was that airplanes don’t routinely spit out false information in the day-to-day function of the machine like AI does. You’re getting into strawman territory mate.
If you can’t fly a plane chances are you’ll crash it. If you can’t use llms chances are you’ll get shit out of it… outcome of using a tool is directly correlated to one’s ability?
Sound logical enough to me.
Sure. However, the outcome of the tool LLM always looks very likely. And if you aren‘t a subject matter expert the likely expected result looks very right. That‘s the difference - hard to spot the wrong things (even for experts)
So is a speedometer and an altimeter until you reaaaaaaaaly need to understand them.
I mean it all boils down to proper tool with proper knowledge and ability. It’s slightly exacerbated by the apparent simplicity but if you look at it as a tool it’s no different.
Except with a plane, if you know how to fly it you’re far less likely to crash it. Even if you “can use LLMs” there’s still a pretty strong chance you’re going to get shit back due to its very nature. One the machine works with you, the other the machine is always working against you.
Nha that’s just plain wrong…also you can also fantastically screw flying a plane but so long you use LLMs safely you’re golden.
It also has no will on its own; it is not « working against you ». Don’t give those apps a semblance of intent.
If I’m canoeing upriver, the river is working against me. That doesn’t mean it has a will. LLMs don’t need to have a will to work against you if your goal is to get accurate information, because by its very design it is just as likely to provide innnacurate information based on the way the tokens it applies to your query are weighted. You cannot control that. Its not plain wrong. Jfc, you slop apologists are fucking delusional. AI doesn’t magically work better for you because you’re special and can somehow counteract its basic fucking design.
Slop apologist because I argue that correctly using a tool to restructure pre-existing information I’m inputting under my oversight is risk free?
You crazy ass end-of-world lunatic…
As far as I know slop always presupposes generation of derivatives, not restructuring or manipulation. You argue out of your ass and that’s just a bad opinion.