Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law

[Dannyalcatraz]

Something being true doesn't stop it from being condescending.

Condescension implies a patronizing superiority. I’m not claiming to be superior; that they are inferior.

I’m saying that the average layperson doesn’t have the training to evaluate medical treatment claims with accuracy, and part of that lack is not having the necessary vocabulary. For example, the concept of comorbidity isn’t that difficult, it’s just the existence in a particular patient multiple afflictions capable of harming or killing them

But it was a major point of distrust with the COVID-era fatality reports. People claimed that the people tracking COVID fatalities were nefariously including people who died from other causes. Even when I tried to explain it in simple terms, some couldn’t accept that someone died because of multiple factors. For them, every person died because of a single cause.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I would say that if you eliminate the “because of new information” language, you’re going to INCREASE the odds of accusations of lying sticking.

Should the experts take more pains in avoiding jargon? Absolutely- clarity is key to messaging. (That lesson was drummed into me by my Wills & Estates prof, Stanley Johanson.) But you still have to let the people know you’re not just making things up; that there’s REASONS behind the changes in advice.

What I noticed during Covid, that may not have happened everywhere, is that epidemy experts were directly put in the limelight. The problem being that epidemy experts aren't necessarily communication expert. So some amount of perfectible communication error was unavoidable. And, at some point, they were also asked about things outside of their field (for exemple, "ok, as an epidemiologist, you recommand locking people at home, but how about the economical impact of the measure?") and it's difficult not to answer a journalist in this case (even if they knew they should have defered to other people for that answer). And the political personal was rather happy to have expert to take responsability for unpopular measures by saying "look, it's unavoidable, the experts say so."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have encountered many extremely knowledgeable people who were bad communicators. Some were in fields that demanded some skill in communication.

Add to that being naive and/or unskilled at politics (in general, not just the governmental version of it) and you get people who are very prone to stepping on societal land mines.

So when, as you correctly point out, the willingness of politicians to shove others into those minefields…

Bringing us back to the case at hand, we are running not tarrying down a similar path. We have faceless, expressionless LLMs giving answers in all kinds of fields as a live beta test. Some are “dressed” as advisors or as musicians. Others seem like virtual buddies. Each harbors hidden dangers. It is plain they’re not experts by their haphazard way of responding.

This beta test is an early encounter in a dangerous forest, and it doesn’t take an oracle to see that they need refinement before they’re suitable for use…if they ever will be.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This beta test is an early encounter in a dangerous forest, and it doesn’t take an oracle to see that they need refinement before they’re suitable for use…if they ever will be.

I think that's where the rift between our positions lie. You consider them to be unsuitable for use. I consider them to be suitable for use, as magic 8-balls are. They don't claim to be something one can rely on for any decision, but they can help sometimes. I'd even say that I get more use of LLMs than magic 8-balls (translating a sentence is often context-dependant, and LLMs, while prone to errors, tend to find the correct way to express things, for example, and I am pretty sure I'd convey my point better here if an LLM was integrated to the board so I can type in my native language and it automatically gets translated to English), while knowing full well not to trust them for anything important.