this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
797 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

63746 readers
3668 users here now

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 other!
  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
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 day ago (3 children)

No probably about it, it definitely can't lie. Lying requires knowledge and intent, and GPTs are just text generators that have neither.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm G P T and I cannot lie.
You other brothers use 'AI'
But when you file a case
To the judge's face
And say, "made mistakes? Not I!"
He'll be mad!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So it can not tell the truth either

[–] [email protected] 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

not really no. They are statistical models that use heuristics to output what is most likely to follow the input you give it

They are in essence mimicking their training data

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So I think this whole thing about whether it can lie or not is just semantics then no?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

everything is semantics.

Lying is telling a falsehood intentionally

LLM's clearly lack the prerequisite intentionality

[–] [email protected] 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

They can’t have intent, no?

The llm is incapable of having intent because it’s just programming

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago

precisely, which is why they cannot lie, just respond with no real grasp of wether what they output is truth or falsehoods.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

A bit out of context my you recall me of some thinking I heard recently about lying vs. bullshitting.

Lying, as you said, requires quite a lot of energy : you need an idea of what the truth is and you engage yourself in a long-term struggle to maintain your lie and keep it coherent as the world goes on.

Bullshit on the other hand is much more accessible : you just have to say things and never look back on them. It's very easy to pile a ton of them and it's much harder to attack you about any of them because they're much less consequent.

So in that view, a bullshitter doesn't give any shit about the truth, while a liar is a bit more "noble". 0

[–] [email protected] 14 points 23 hours ago

I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it's very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.