Freyi comments on (New Mexico) Lawyer outsourced his job to ChatGPT — Invented Fake Witnesses in Murder Appeal

[–] Freyi@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

I think it's even dangerous and irresponsible even to use them as summarisation and document "assist" tools, especially where someone's life could literally be on the line. No matter how careful you think you are, these things do not understand anything and will inject hallucinations or incorrect interpretations into summaries, influencing the user's judgement in ways they can't predict. And because they present their output in a seemingly professional, neutral way, the user won't know when they're being misled.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

It really depends on how you use it.

If you say "give me all the page numbers that use violent language" in a huge library of texts, then that'll likely get you some good information. You can also skim the document yourself before or after to see if anything else needs to be looked for.

If you say "what does this stack of documents say?" that will likely get you bad information.

There's also other types of Machine Learning that is used in document review for lawyers, some of them are trained to look for very specific items.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent