NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9702747" data-attributes="member: 42856">Don't you think the wording given right now by Chat-GPT when asked a legal question is enough? It seems that at least one LLM already do as you want them to do. I don't think they'd even need to be required to do so: being held liable for their advice (as any other person giving credible yet dangerous advice in many juridictions) would prompt them to display warnings to avoid or limit their responsability without being required. This would be in their best interest to do so.For medical wording, I asked what it could do for a layman and the warning was that it can only help phrase things to explain a doctor, not provide diagnosis or treatment. It said (among other warning): "No Diagnosis or Treatment Plans: I can’t diagnose medical conditions or suggest specific treatments. Only qualified healthcare professionals can do that after examining a patient directly." It is however useful when providing medical information (like, how paracetamol work, including mention of its analgesic power, but without saying "you're in pain? Take paracetamol".Grok, when presented with symptoms (I told it I had a pain in the knee), states:"I'm not a doctor, but I can offer some general information. It can have various causes, ranging from benign to potentially serious. Here are some possible reasons and steps you can consider: [...]  I strongly recommend consulting a healthcare professional, such as a general practitioner or a specialist, especially if the pain persists or is accompanied by other symptoms. They can provide a proper diagnosis and tailored advice. If you’d like, I can search for more specific information or help you formulate questions to ask your doctor. [...] Disclaimer: Grok is not a doctor; please consult one.Really, I don't think they need to do more to prevent people for mistaking the text they provide with medical advice.It wouldn't exonerate their responsability in all context, for example if they kept giving bad advice after being warned of the problem, for example.It will vary tremendously by juridiction. Saying "Source X says Y" doesn't make one liable everywhere, especially without endorsement. I think you were speaking of the case where an LLM would advise to stop a cancer treatment and pray intead, providing a link to a faith healer as "proof"?We get that some people are morons, but the law isn't necessarily made to protect morons. There are juridiction where the person can't claim liability because he failed what we'd call common sense. I have in mind a specific example of a person who was told to get on a chair to clean something too high and the chair broke, and said person was denied her claim because she couldn't ignore the chair was a garden chair and couldn't support her weight. There is a middle ground to be found between protecting people (by having warnings posted, for example) and totally suppressing the information (or requiring a permit to access information).</blockquote>

Verification