I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit… Like, lawyers shouldn’t even be a thing you need unless it’s for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.
Also, as someone who studied medicine… Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don’t want to imply that they don’t know what they’re doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT… they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.
When people say “AI” these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that’s the opposite of what you’d want.
Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit?
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it’s a patient and instead of asking “could these be related” the patient is told “these are related”.
a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
Specifically tuned LLMs that are trained on medical databases and less sycophant (E.g. OpenEvidence) are one of the killer applications of AI. Tons of frivolous AI nonsense but this could actually save lives. Access to broad knowledge and connections that a doctor can make use of.
We’re demanding and regulating the complete wrong shit about AI.
I’ve seen purpose built models for things like patent examination and its clear that AI can be incredibly useful. I think if the implementation of AI was not so abusive and destructive people would not be so unwilling to see the good uses.
We live in a late stage capitalist boring dystopia, of course the rollout for AI is going to be abusive and destructive. The real problem is the unlimited greed and billions of freshly printed money in an overheated capitalist economy that is poured into marketing and destructive causes. But interfering in the “free market” doesn’t ever enter the liberals mind so we get this dysfunctional reaction.
AI corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities, and put under the mandate that they work for the betterment of the population and economy, not for profit. They cannot be trusted to use AI safely. It’s potentially dangerous technology, more dangerous than nuclear power. We should pour billions into AI research but with the objective to make it useful and safe, not to maximize shareholder value.
Outlawing people from using expert AI models to get expert advice is idiotic at best, malicious at worst. Next they’ll ban using open source AI models locally. Plutocrats are going to want to collect rent on AI usage.
I agree completely, especially considering the models were trained off human content without our consent collectively or individually. They are ours by all possible interpretations.
I do think there is a certain poetry that vast amounts of humanities written works went into training and creating the LLM. They are a true miracle - even if their current ability is very often vastly overstated and they are still pretty low IQ, they are the first thinking machines. Just that intelligence without sentience is possible is an amazing discovery.
How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don’t think the implementation needs to be different.
Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?
Well it much more unpredictable than a human. Liability would require AGI and the AGI agents to be predictable. But the LLM models are more like semi intelligent toddlers with an encyclopedic knowledge base. They can reason somewhat but understand little. With the right prompt, you can get wildly weird behavior.
You could demand that corporations are responsible to mitigate if something goes wrong - if it can be mitigated. Similar to a forum admin who needs to take down an illegal post after it’s become known to them.
You can say for something like an application for taking medical notes there is liability. Because you have a choice to not use that, or to double check their ai assistant. Or with the company who sells the software if they make false claims or misleading marketing.
But in general? Who knows what they’ll say lol.
LLMs generate language, but not a single human on earth understands how they reason. How they actually “think”. We do not have a theory for that, not for human and not for LLMs. We know how it starts (text prediction) and figured out how to increase this massively and we understand the basic atoms just like we understand neurons - but we do not know how the actual “thinking” works. This is what makes LLMs actually miraculous (at least to me).
We can understand human minds through psychoanalysis. Obviously LLMs aren’t sentient but they are also much less “bound by nature”. They are fever dream machines that you can sort of put in a harness, or let rerun until some test criteria is fulfilled. But a user could take some AI model and retrain it or do all sorts of things. How could the LLM take responsibility? It would have to predict what happens outside of it’s “black box”? It would literally have to understand what the question means and what it will be used for, where they are in what country with what legislation etc. That requires general knowledge / intelligence.
I’d agree with you to some extent if people weren’t so god damn stupid. So many lazy fucks just take the AI’s output at face value, believing it to be some all knowledgeable god, rather than a compilation of all human biases expressed on the internet with a bunch of hallucinations thrown in for good measure.
I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit… Like, lawyers shouldn’t even be a thing you need unless it’s for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.
Also, as someone who studied medicine… Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don’t want to imply that they don’t know what they’re doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT… they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.
When people say “AI” these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that’s the opposite of what you’d want.
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it’s a patient and instead of asking “could these be related” the patient is told “these are related”.
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
Specifically tuned LLMs that are trained on medical databases and less sycophant (E.g. OpenEvidence) are one of the killer applications of AI. Tons of frivolous AI nonsense but this could actually save lives. Access to broad knowledge and connections that a doctor can make use of.
We’re demanding and regulating the complete wrong shit about AI.
I’ve seen purpose built models for things like patent examination and its clear that AI can be incredibly useful. I think if the implementation of AI was not so abusive and destructive people would not be so unwilling to see the good uses.
We live in a late stage capitalist boring dystopia, of course the rollout for AI is going to be abusive and destructive. The real problem is the unlimited greed and billions of freshly printed money in an overheated capitalist economy that is poured into marketing and destructive causes. But interfering in the “free market” doesn’t ever enter the liberals mind so we get this dysfunctional reaction.
AI corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities, and put under the mandate that they work for the betterment of the population and economy, not for profit. They cannot be trusted to use AI safely. It’s potentially dangerous technology, more dangerous than nuclear power. We should pour billions into AI research but with the objective to make it useful and safe, not to maximize shareholder value.
Outlawing people from using expert AI models to get expert advice is idiotic at best, malicious at worst. Next they’ll ban using open source AI models locally. Plutocrats are going to want to collect rent on AI usage.
I agree completely, especially considering the models were trained off human content without our consent collectively or individually. They are ours by all possible interpretations.
I do think there is a certain poetry that vast amounts of humanities written works went into training and creating the LLM. They are a true miracle - even if their current ability is very often vastly overstated and they are still pretty low IQ, they are the first thinking machines. Just that intelligence without sentience is possible is an amazing discovery.
And answering general health questions isn’t how AI is being used in the medical field.
In that we aren’t regulating any of it?
What would be your demands for regulation?
Companies should be liable for what their LLM says.
That seems technically not possible.
How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don’t think the implementation needs to be different.
Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?
Well it much more unpredictable than a human. Liability would require AGI and the AGI agents to be predictable. But the LLM models are more like semi intelligent toddlers with an encyclopedic knowledge base. They can reason somewhat but understand little. With the right prompt, you can get wildly weird behavior.
You could demand that corporations are responsible to mitigate if something goes wrong - if it can be mitigated. Similar to a forum admin who needs to take down an illegal post after it’s become known to them.
You can say for something like an application for taking medical notes there is liability. Because you have a choice to not use that, or to double check their ai assistant. Or with the company who sells the software if they make false claims or misleading marketing.
But in general? Who knows what they’ll say lol.
LLMs generate language, but not a single human on earth understands how they reason. How they actually “think”. We do not have a theory for that, not for human and not for LLMs. We know how it starts (text prediction) and figured out how to increase this massively and we understand the basic atoms just like we understand neurons - but we do not know how the actual “thinking” works. This is what makes LLMs actually miraculous (at least to me).
We can understand human minds through psychoanalysis. Obviously LLMs aren’t sentient but they are also much less “bound by nature”. They are fever dream machines that you can sort of put in a harness, or let rerun until some test criteria is fulfilled. But a user could take some AI model and retrain it or do all sorts of things. How could the LLM take responsibility? It would have to predict what happens outside of it’s “black box”? It would literally have to understand what the question means and what it will be used for, where they are in what country with what legislation etc. That requires general knowledge / intelligence.
I’d agree with you to some extent if people weren’t so god damn stupid. So many lazy fucks just take the AI’s output at face value, believing it to be some all knowledgeable god, rather than a compilation of all human biases expressed on the internet with a bunch of hallucinations thrown in for good measure.
It’s a great search engine for case law, but yeah most people are too stupid to use it.
Yeah, I don’t disagree, it can be a decent starting point, emphasis important lol