Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law

[Dannyalcatraz]

No. But we vote for legislators. Your argument seems to me "it is not a concern if the underlying arguments for regulations are perceived as condescending because these arguments will not be entered into the public record". I don't find that compelling. I think people are aware enough to know what the actual motivation is and prickly enough to be offended by it.

A legislator’s job is to make hard decisions, whether or not it’s popular. ESPECIALLY when it’s unpopular but the best option.

Despite the unpopularity amongst those in the industry, commercial fishing is almost always limited to certain seasons, and sometimes to certain days within those seasons.

The shortest I’ve seen was 17 minutes for a particular type of sturgeon. Some of the fishermen didn’t even hit the water.

The Shortest Fishing Season Ever? – Fish'n Canada

fishncanada.com

Some crabbing seasons have been curtailed or even canceled due to whale entanglement, overfishing, or population collapses.

I think it is much less threatening. We will have to wait a bit longer I suppose. But I do not see evidence that generative AI is a comparable public health threat to smallpox.

Those were not examples of comparative threat, but rather of the public’s reaction to public health measures. Each of those generated lots of pushback and bad press.

Right now, we don’t have a good grasp on the scope of the public health threat posed by AI hallucinations or bad advice, but we do know of several that were life-threatening.

Google admits its AI Overviews can generate "some odd, inaccurate" results

Google said it's rolling back its AI-generated search results feature after two weeks. Here's why.

www.cbsnews.com

Pharmaceuticals & household chemicals have been restricted to “prescription only” status, removed from the market, or even never released for incidents as low as 25 negative outcomes in a 1000 person study.

I think if you are interested in public health the #1 priority has to be regaining the trust of your audience.

Based on the histories of laws covering drunk driving, mandatory seatbelt, restrictions on tobacco, etc., I’d say you regain public trust by showing the measures taken are actually effective.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I want to revisit and highlight this.

What you’re describing ISN’T medical advice, it’s factual/historical info. That stuff is freely available on numerous websites, including Wikipedia.

That info not what we’re discussing prohibiting general use AIs from dispensing. We’re talking about prohibiting them from responding with advice. BIG difference.

I don't think (but maybe it's possible/will be possible) for a chatbot to differentiate between the two. You can lie to the chatbot and tell him that you inquire about symptom A in general, then of symptom B, get it to say that these symptoms can be associated with a list containing thirty disease, without telling him you're actually suffering from them and are looking for medical advice. I am not sure the chatbot can both have the knowledge and not dispense it in a foolproof manner. You already can't ask "I have a cardiac deficiency, what treatment should I do?" (you get an answer saying you should see a doctor about that and an offer to reword your symptom to facilitate explaining what you feel to the doctor), but if you want to avoid a user bypassing that and getting information of usual cures for cardiac deficiency, to which he'd say, for example, beta-blockers, and then you can ask the most sold beta-blocker, to which he'd say Metoprolol, and you can self-treat your cardiac arythmia (that you never had)... I fear you would have to neuter the training data on a lot of medical information to prevent answers to be given.

Unless you have something specific in mind to distinguish advice from information? Maybe commercially operated, web-based AI are already not dispensing medical advice with the way they frame the information they give. They do however answer questions about health and accept to explain what drugs do or what kind of information checking the amount of iron in your blood can reveal.

But one anecdote I know of from discussing CME with my father was that many doctors blamed part of the overprescribing of antibiotics on patients demanding them based on “their research” and threatening to walk out if they didn’t get them. So (some) doctors would prescribe a short course of antibiotics along with whatever their affliction ACTUALLY demanded.

And that's how resistance against antibiotic builds up... But I can totally see that. I googled a little more on the question of Dr Google, and I found studies on the cost of unwarranted doctor's appointment for the UK's NHS, estimated at half a billion pound (in 2018). Basically people with headache going to see a doctor about their brain cancer instead of waiting for it to pass, but not the reverse.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Based on the histories of laws covering drunk driving, mandatory seatbelt, restrictions on tobacco, etc., I’d say you regain public trust by showing the measures taken are actually effective.

I wish I were as optimistic. I think you regain public trust when the generation that knew about not wearing seatbelt has passed away and everyone is putting their seatbelt out of habit... Once lost, I don't think you can regain public trust over a reasonable time, since well, you're showing the measures you supported are effective, but why would they trust your figures, since they don't consider you trustworthy? If people don't trust you about vaccines, they won't trust you showing that vaccines are useful (and quote a random website saying that vaccine contain a 5G mind-controlling chip or something)

 

[The Firebird]

A legislator’s job is to make hard decisions, whether or not it’s popular. ESPECIALLY when it’s unpopular but the best option.

Despite the unpopularity amongst those in the industry, commercial fishing is almost always limited to certain seasons, and sometimes to certain days within those seasons.

I think you are conflating "unpopular with those in the industry" with "those in the general public". Most people don't know or care about commercial fishing. But they trust legislators to make decisions in their best interest, including by consultation with experts. Many voters prioritize environmental concerns and support these sorts of restrictions.

If 98% of the population hated that law and wanted to open it up...that would happen.

Right now, we don’t have a good grasp on the scope of the public health threat posed by AI hallucinations or bad advice, but we do know of several that were life-threatening.

Google admits its AI Overviews can generate "some odd, inaccurate" results

Google said it's rolling back its AI-generated search results feature after two weeks. Here's why.

www.cbsnews.com

Given that ChatGPT has been out over 2.5 years, presumably asked medical questions throughout, and given that the early years are probably the most dangerous because hallucinations were not as widely known...I'd say the threat is minor, from a public health perspective.

I could be wrong. I would be curious to see evidence otherwise. Maybe it hasn't gotten far enough into the population yet to show.

Based on the histories of laws covering drunk driving, mandatory seatbelt, restrictions on tobacco, etc., I’d say you regain public trust by showing the measures taken are actually effective.

All of those involved a situation where 1) a problem existed for decades; 2) a regulation was introduced; 3) everyone could observe the solution.

That is not the case here. It was not the case with COVID. It is not the case with climate. In these cases, regulations are attempting to preempt a problem that is/was not particularly well understood. These face a greater burden because the public needs to be convinced that the problem is significant and that the proposed solutions will address it. They are more open to conspiratorial thinking because one can suggest the experts are making up or exaggerating the problem in order to impose their will on the public.

In this case it is not enough to make a rationally sound argument that the problem exists. It needs to be a personal one that connects with people on a human level, that validates their fears and recognizes where they are coming from. Presenting the rational argument alone will lead to distrust. Invoking the authority of far off experts will lead to distrust.

 

[Ryujin]

But one anecdote I know of from discussing CME with my father was that many doctors blamed part of the overprescribing of antibiotics on patients demanding them based on “their research” and threatening to walk out if they didn’t get them. So (some) doctors would prescribe a short course of antibiotics along with whatever their affliction ACTUALLY demanded.

(Overprescribing antibiotics reduces the effective product life of that antibiotic in particular as resistance increases, as well as contributing to the rise of other antibiotic resistant bacteria over time. The more we use them, the faster we lose them.)

For us Boomers, antibiotics were frequently over prescribed, without there being any request from the patient, on the "couldn't hurt" principle. Obviously is did hurt. They just didn't know it at the time. Though I sometimes wonder if it had something to do with the same sort of doctor perks that helped create the opioid crisis. "Top customers go to Vegas!"

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think you are conflating "unpopular with those in the industry" with "those in the general public". Most people don't know or care about commercial fishing. But they trust legislators to make decisions in their best interest, including by consultation with experts. Many voters prioritize environmental concerns and support these sorts of restrictions.

I am slightly more pessimistic. I think the population prioritize environmental concern that don't affect them. Say, with numbers used just to make a sentence: 2% of the population are commercial fisherman and 40% of the population don't care and have no political consciousness, and 60% of the population is rather OK with saying that environmental concerns are something they share. Even if the 2% of commercial fishermen are all concerned about environment, they'll complain about losing their industry, but you'll still get a majority to forbid commercial fishing.

Now, if you want to ban combustion-engine car, it's not 2% of commercial fisherman but 80% of car owner that will protest, and you'll be left with the support of the non-car owning 60%. That's 12% and you don't get your majority. I don't have high hopes for the goal of the EU to switch to electric car only in short time frame.

There are situations were representative can make better choices that their constituents based on elevated level of information (like the optimal tax rate), but I don't think environmental concerns are the best theme for that.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

For us Boomers, antibiotics were frequently over prescribed, without there being any request from the patient, on the "couldn't hurt" principle. Obviously is did hurt. They just didn't know it at the time. Though I sometimes wonder if it had something to do with the same sort of doctor perks that helped create the opioid crisis. "Top customers go to Vegas!"

Not sure. Overprescription of antibiotics also exist in countries where top customers would go to jail instead. Though the rise of this overprescription predates the stricter rules on bribing doctors. Maybe the perception of antibiotics as magic by the general public (hey, before antiobiotics, you died, no you're cured in a week!) of the post-War generation fostered the idea that you need antibiotics to get better, generating a popular pressure toward their prescription. And when doctors get the habit of prescribing them (including when they can't rule out a bacterial infection, since the problem of overprescription was ignored so it was errring on the safe side), habits die hard.

 

[Ryujin]

Not sure. Overprescription of antibiotics also exist in countries where top customers would go to jail instead. Though the rise of this overprescription predates the stricter rules on bribing doctors. Maybe the perception of antibiotics as magic by the general public (hey, before antiobiotics, you died, no you're cured in a week!) of the post-War generation fostered the idea that you need antibiotics to get better, generating a popular pressure toward their prescription.

Purely anecdotal, so not provided as evidence of anything, but without prompting of any sort I was prescribed Penicillin for Chicken Pox.

Chicken Pox.

 

[trappedslider]

Purely anecdotal, so not provided as evidence of anything, but without prompting of any sort I was prescribed Penicillin for Chicken Pox.

Chicken Pox.

on the topic of chicken pox, when i was a toddler/infant I got BOTH chicken pox and Shingles and since the hospital we used at the time was a teaching hospital. guess who got shown off as a "this is what shingles looks like"

 

[Ryujin]

on the topic of chicken pox, when i was a toddler/infant I got BOTH chicken pox and Shingles and since the hospital we used at the time was a teaching hospital. guess who got shown off as a "this is what shingles looks like"

So far I've been sort of lucky with Shingles. Only had an outbreak on my lower right leg, that only hurt as badly as a medium sunburn. Unfortunately it got misdiagnosed by 4 different doctors. Guess what they put me on; antibiotics. When the pills didn't work, after a couple of weeks, they put me on a CADD Pump for the next 2. Of course it ended up healing on its own and was finally diagnosed, after the fact, by an ER doctor friend who was also a motorcycle racer, at the race track.

I supposed I can forgive the 3 doctors after the first, because the treatment regimen prescribed by the first completely masked how it looked (soaking with iodine and bandaging).