What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say
Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”
And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!
[…W]hen examining only those who passed the exam (i.e. licensed or license-pending attorneys), GPT-4’s performance is estimated to drop to 48th percentile overall, and 15th percentile on essays.
officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now
also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?
Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests
I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket.
because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”
And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
“guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter
oh i would love to read those court documents
and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate
wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea
what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute
they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
“but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”
it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be
but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won’t be able to judge
then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices.
It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
Well… I do agree with you but human brains are basically big prediction engines that use lookup tables, experience, to navigate around life. Obviously a super simplification, and LLMs are nowhere near humans, but it is quite a step in the direction.
oh my, you’re such a confluence of bad takes (racist, transphobic, creepy and ignorant of the technical and biological topics you’re pontificating about.)
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
Yeah, it’s a philosophical question, which means you need a philosophical answer. Spitballing won’t help you figure shit out a priori because it turns out that learning how to think a priorieffectively takes years of hard graft and is called “studying philosophy”. You should be asking people like me what “know” means in this context and what distinguishes memory in human beings from “memory” in an LLM (a great deal, as it happens!)
“(…) perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, comprehension, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making (…)”
Because a machine that “forgets” stuff it reads seems rather useless… considering it was a multiple choice style exam and, as a machine, Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized, it should have scored perfect almost all the time.
They’re auto complete machines. All they fundamentally do is match words together. If it was trained on the answers and still couldn’t reproduce the correct word matches, it failed.
the very funny thing is, all of the garden variety free text autocomplete systems I’ve worked with have been implemented using neural nets. it’s not like it’s a particularly new or novel approach. but surely the AI bros coming into this thread know that and they’re not just regurgitating buzzwords, right?
What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say
And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!
officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now
also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?
“Nooo you don’t get it, LLMs are supposed to be shit”
But LLM’s don’t work like Typewriters, they work like Microwaves!
oh is that how come I get so much popcorn around these discussions? 🤔 makes sense when you think about it!
I was considering interjecting in there but I don’t want to get it on my clothes, so I’m content just watching from the outside.
Not great, but I’m also not obligated to teach anyone anything, soooooo
Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests
because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”
“guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”
oh i would love to read those court documents
wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea
what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute
“but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”
Spoken like someone who hasn’t gotten beyond ChatGPT on default settings.
it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be
but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs
what the fuck kind of reply is this
A reply to a rant based on false premises.
congratulations on your impending graduation (to expat poster)
I love the anger, the name calling and the downvotes. Keep em coming.
at which point it’s just easier to do the right thing straight away, that is pay a lawyer to do their job https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
so your process of getting legal advice is:
how does that simplify anything
Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!
[ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)
deleted by creator
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.
Well… I do agree with you but human brains are basically big prediction engines that use lookup tables, experience, to navigate around life. Obviously a super simplification, and LLMs are nowhere near humans, but it is quite a step in the direction.
@phoenixz @Soyweiser “Let’s redefine what it means to be human, so we can say the LLM is human” have you bumped your head?
Well, I don’t think humans are turing computable, so I disagree with you there. Which should have been clear from my initial post.
Fun fact, what you just said about how humans are just computers is also part of dianetics. Amazing how it happened in 2 different cults.
░S░T░O░C░H░A░S░T░I░C░P░A░R░R░O░T░I░N░B░I░O░
irl guffaw
oh my, you’re such a confluence of bad takes (racist, transphobic, creepy and ignorant of the technical and biological topics you’re pontificating about.)
I dug into their post history and god you’re fucking right
Do you have any foundation for that model of human sentience, apart from feels?
inb4 “it’s just, like, common sense, man”
I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.
I don’t think we are turing computable. So I don’t think we are fancy LUTs.
Heretic! Burn the witch!….wait what did they say about ….!
LLMs know nothing. literally. they cannot.
Yeah but neither did Socrates
but he at least was smug about it
@mawhrin @EatATaco https://mastodon.me.uk/@pikesley/110077525298973789
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
nearly every word of your post demonstrates a comprehensively thorough lack of understanding of how this shit works
it also demonstrates why you’re lost about the “effective difference”
I don’t mean this aggressively, but you really don’t have any concrete idea of wtf you’re talking about, and it shows
Yeah, it’s a philosophical question, which means you need a philosophical answer. Spitballing won’t help you figure shit out a priori because it turns out that learning how to think a priori effectively takes years of hard graft and is called “studying philosophy”. You should be asking people like me what “know” means in this context and what distinguishes memory in human beings from “memory” in an LLM (a great deal, as it happens!)
no, it doesn’t, and it’s not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).
the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.
I’m not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:
What’s the effective difference?
don’t compare your child to a chatbot wtf
The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.
need to be able to think LLM’s are impressive, probably
surely tech will save us all, right?
Because a machine that “forgets” stuff it reads seems rather useless… considering it was a multiple choice style exam and, as a machine, Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized, it should have scored perfect almost all the time.
I feel like this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs are trained.
They’re auto complete machines. All they fundamentally do is match words together. If it was trained on the answers and still couldn’t reproduce the correct word matches, it failed.
deleted by creator
the very funny thing is, all of the garden variety free text autocomplete systems I’ve worked with have been implemented using neural nets. it’s not like it’s a particularly new or novel approach. but surely the AI bros coming into this thread know that and they’re not just regurgitating buzzwords, right?
deleted by creator
How about I ban you for being obnoxious instead?
I like them rules you got here
“don’t come into our loungeroom and piss on the floor” should be simple and obvious, and yet
how about fuck off
deleted by creator