Recent content by Jfdlsjfd

That depends. In the US (where it doesn't seem to be entirely decided) and in Japan, you can't, but in the EU or China, the tendancy is to consider that anything that result of the creative process can be protected. So the output of the answer to basic question might not, but more involved...

I guess it depends on where you live. I don't know of many places where printing, posting or telling false things is enough to be prosecuted, absent additional specific circumstances, even voluntarily. One might be found liable, but an outright ban is uncommon. I'd love to have examples of the...

Yeah. We're seeing reports of hallucinations. Noone, as far as I know, deny that they exist (though there is no proof they are actually involved in the specific case mentionned in this thread) and there is no reason to suppose they don't happen when asking about law. But, the question that must...

There is also a mediatic lens effect. It tends to report headlines, people read headlines, and even if the article got the details right, people remember the headline better. I can quote two court decisions in France where a people moving from the city to a village sued his neighbours because...

From my point of view, where anti-semitic hate-speech on a website is punished by up to 1 year of jail and 45,000 € fine, the idea that "something" specific should be done for hate-speech generated by AI accessed through a website sounds very strange in the first place. Especially when framed as...

And, not speaking of AI but of ChatGPT, it does it with assurance. Real-life example no further than two days ago: Me: can you remind me of the maximum employment time for an adjunct professor (I know it's six years in my juridiction, I wanted the source) ChatGPT: Of course, it's nine years...

I think, or at least a family of implementations quite similar to it (Claude, Grok...): general purpose LLMs, marketed by companies to the general public through an app or website?

Then maybe the use of "AI" is inappropriate when the target is (I suppose) ChatGPT?

I am not ignoring that fact. Never in this thread have we limited our reasoning to the context of the United States. I think that acknowledging that country works differently is exactly the basis of why I said "we'll probably won't find a consensus". I appreciate your explanation (really, no...

LexisNexis and Dalloz are two reputable editors of legal text databases. I don't know their internal operation, but I guess they trained or will train (respectively) an AI helper to search that database, that is trusted already and hand-reviewed by experts. And the database includes already...

I can't explain why you took issue, you'd be the best person to identify why you did take issue? The point was that: 1. We notice that sometimes, AI can give bad legal advice. 2. A person said what I understood to be "AI should be prevented to give legal advice because bad legal advice...

Technically, when you sign up, you end-up being exposed to a wall of text. Including this: https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies/ Which does force you to agree, among other, with this: Note: answering your question shouldn't be assumed to imply that I think that such a contract is...

I have no problem making the manufacturer liable using regular, common means of making it liable. The idea that was discussed was preventing AI from doing legal advice, which isn't making the manufacturer liable, it's banning the tool altogether.

I do, and, much like the First Amendment and the definition of free speech and the limitations of it, it's something country-specific, which I covered when I said "there will be no consensus on the solution" earlier. Umbran was talking about banning the tool, so there would be no liability...

How would you call it other than a tool? (real question, there is absolutely no sarcasm). It's a piece of software.