TechTakes

1397 readers

54 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

645

Remember how ChatGPT totally aced the bar exam? Wow! yeah, turns out that was just a lie (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

255 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

[+] [email protected] -10 points 6 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

so your process of getting legal advice is:

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
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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months 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)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months 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