Supreme Court chief justice warns of AI risks after blunder involving ex-Trump fixer
www.independent.co.uk
external-link
Mr Roberts suggested there may come a time when conducting legal research without the help of AI is ‘unthinkable’

Supreme Court chief justice warns of dangers of AI in judicial work, suggests it is “always a bad idea” to cite non-existent court cases::Mr Roberts suggested there may come a time when conducting legal research without the help of AI is ‘unthinkable’

Citing non-existent facts in your judgment is just fine though

bruhduh
link
fedilink
English
-1
edit-2
9M

deleted by creator

@paddirn@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
59M

Yeah, or we could just hold lawyers to higher standards and expect them to do their due diligence like they should anytime they submit court documents. The one time I had to go through a lawyer for something involving a court case, they sent a PDF document of a court filing they were going to submit on my behalf for me to review and sign. I noticed multiple errors and made a detailed list of pg# and paragraph where each correction was needed, sent it back to them. A day or two later I got a “revised” copy of the document back that not only missed some of the errors I had called out, but introduced additional errors. At that point, given what I was paying per hour for their “services”, I said fuck it, opened up the PDF and made the corrections myself, then signed it and sent it on.

I’m sure it was just being handled by a paralegal or an intern or whatever, but it was aggravating that I basically had to do the lawyer’s job for them, since going through multiple rounds of corrections would’ve likely cost me more than just doing it myself.

@TootSweet@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
69M

My new-year’s wish is for the AI bubble to pop as soon as possible.

@Eheran@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
09M

But why? And what bubble?

@andros_rex@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
3
edit-2
9M

This isn’t the first time there has been a ton of hype surrounding “AI” - folks back in the 60s were having conversations with “Eliza.” IIRC there were also a similar boom in the early 90s.

“AI” has been entirely misrepresented to investors and the public at large. The computing resources needed to produce the impressive results we saw a few months ago are not sustainable long term, and will not produce profit. We can already see ChatGPT being tuned down and giving worse results.

Like crypto/NFT/previous hypes, it’s also being shoved into places it doesn’t belong. The education system is collapsing, why not have kids learn from “AI” teachers? Facebook/every other social platform refuses to pay for effective content moderation - just get an “AI” to do it. It’s not effective at all, but it works enough for the c-suite who believe the hype.

“AI” has also essentially become a digital oil spill - the internet has always been lousy with garbage but “AI” makes it easy to pump out thousands of shitty comments to promote whatever agenda you’d like. You can already see this on Facebook - threads of hundreds of boomers admiring imaginary statues of Jesus or whatever.

Not OC, but there’s definitely an AI bubble.

First of all, real “AI” doesn’t even exist yet. It’s all machine learning, which is a component of AI, but it’s not the same as AI. “AI” is really just a marketing buzzword at this point. Every company is claiming their app is “AI-powered” and most of them aren’t even close.

Secondly, “AI” seems to be where crypto was a few years ago. The bitcoin bubble popped (along with many other currencies), and so will the AI bubble. Crypto didn’t go away, nor will it, and AI isn’t going away either. However, it’s a fad right now that isn’t going to last in its current form. (This one is just my opinion.)

@TootSweet@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
79M

The… AI… bubble.

I said that. It’s right there.

As for “why,” because it’s causing problems as people trust a technology that can just straight up give them false information. The sooner the bubble bursts, the fewer people will be harmed by AI hallucination.

bruhduh
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
9M

Nvidia doesn’t like this statement

@farcaster@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
449M

Perhaps he ought to address the overt corruption in his own court before worrying about literally anything else

Massada
link
fedilink
English
199M

They benefit from said corruption and have no incentive to address it.

@Dkarma@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
69M

removed by mod

It’s a good thing current supreme court justices don’t rule in favor of the highest bidder! Oh… wait.

@meeeeetch@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
99M

That’s good advice. Shame he and his colleagues didn’t follow it in 303 Creative

@CADmonkey@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
79M

“Counsel, can you cite precedent?”

“Why, yes I can your honor. It’s a precedent I made up.”

bruhduh
link
fedilink
English
3
edit-2
9M

“Counsel, can you cite precedent?”

“Why, yes I can your honor. Trust me bro.”

Create a post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


  • 1 user online
  • 182 users / day
  • 580 users / week
  • 1.37K users / month
  • 4.49K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 7.41K Posts
  • 84.7K Comments
  • Modlog