This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
And we never will, because of the fundamental ways the technology works. LLMs needs nondeterminism in order to function. It’s truly a black box, which makes it a nonstarter in any discipline that demands accuracy and integrity and repeatability.
Through the same process of non-determinism I just described. Lawyers asked ChatGPT to find cases so they could be cited in their arguments, and it gave them “sources” that were just bupkis.
It’s the same chat window, going to the same flawed machine. If you doubt the machine the first time, what makes you want to trust it the second or third time?
“Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find.
ChatGPT responds that yes, it is - prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”.
After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.
And we never will, because of the fundamental ways the technology works. LLMs needs nondeterminism in order to function. It’s truly a black box, which makes it a nonstarter in any discipline that demands accuracy and integrity and repeatability.
I mean, plenty of them will provide sources so you can verify.
Through the same process of non-determinism I just described. Lawyers asked ChatGPT to find cases so they could be cited in their arguments, and it gave them “sources” that were just bupkis.
It’s the same chat window, going to the same flawed machine. If you doubt the machine the first time, what makes you want to trust it the second or third time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_v._Avianca,_Inc.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769