This is the second time a redditor has accused me of not understanding technology when I disagree with them about a point regarding AI in a day. I love seeing people condescend to me about technology that I have years of experience working with in academic and professional settings.

"The data says black people commit more crime" is still not a reason to build automated systems that treat them differently. Biased models are not a good reason to abandon the constitutional and civic principles this country was founded on.

It might happen. But it will require truly human-like AI. A kind of AI that could also practice medicine or software engineering, or pretty much any professional work.

I hope we get there. It would be a triumph of humanity if people no longer “need” to work. The challenge is ensuring the benefits of the technology are equally distributed in society.

If you say so.

3 + 3 is 4?

Is that “cancel culture”?

You are just embarrassed because you didn’t realize it until I pointed it out.

How so? Felt my post was pretty clear in it's intend.

Though I do appreciate that you think that little ol' me not overlooking the thread cancels out thousands of absent upvotes and comments that Musk/Tesla related threads usually get on this sub

Don’t you get tired of being so obtuse

Please, by all means, keep both proving my point & justifying my unwillingness to engage with this passive aggressive dribble 🙂

...and yet this 🤡 continues to wonder/question why he warrants downvotes 🤔🤣✌🏽

Give it 10 or 20 years.

That's exactly how they keep the immigrants out.

>So atomic mass is subjective? The table of elements is subjective?

So you can't compare SOCIAL ENGINEERING to something that is subjective -- you want to compare it to atomic mass?

There's no point discussing things with a person who breaks so many rules of logic.

>It’s sounds like it’s all about people and their subjective reality.

Yes. Like your reality where you think Atomic mass being a stable number everyone can determine ALSO covers whether they think their outfit makes them look fat.

There is "objective reality" -- well, as far as you know, so far, with humanity's limited perception of the Universe. But, people interpret everything. Some people do not eat eggs because they are Vegan. 3 Eggs is objective fact. The "Truth" that what you gave me is a good thing, is an interpretation. And you assume how other people think based on your experience.

Reality and truth are subjective as hell. Facts are data points and can be accurate, but WHICH FACTS are we considering? "FACT; there are three eggs -- I win!" Okay, what were the rules? "That's a secret."

If the AI is unaware of the race of the client, doesn't that mean it's actually impartial? Because it's simply treating the being as a client/human and not introducing any bias?

[deleted]

>vs. trying to convince you otherwise.

Yes, that would require you to know more about what you are saying. "Succinct" would require you to actually connect your short observation to SOMETHING -- what you did was little more than just say; "Not true!" and people didn't like my geek answer and how it made them feel so you got the karma. I really don't care about the Karma, I care about having a decent conversation. I can't do that with "Smoke & Mirrors" when I could apply it to at least a dozen different aspects of this situation, and I have no idea what the common person thinks. And the idea that people have one point of view at a time -- that's foreign to me as well.

>At a minimum, I might suggest not taking these casual internet discussions with strangers so personally.

Oh, you think my observation about "this is a shitty thing" is me being hurt? No. It's ANNOYING. It's annoying that ignorant comments that are popular get upvotes. Usually I cracking jokes and sneaking in the higher concepts for those who might catch them -- because sometimes that's all you can do when you see more than they seem to.

I could make a dick joke and get 1,000 karma and explain how to manipulate gravity and get a -2 because someone didn't read it in a textbook.

However, the ability for people to think outside the box has gotten better over time, and it's not EVERYONE annoying me with ignorance, just half of them. That's a super cool improvement right there!

Well, that depends.

There’s cases of AI being discriminatory because of the data that it was trained on.

I believe an article recently showed that an AI used for sifting through job applicants was heavily biased against women because it was trained on data that was biased.

The same thing could happen here

Ok, you seemed to be unaware based on your comment though.

No I was quite aware that I made a post in here, but thank you for pointing out the obvious nonetheless

I overlooked this

"Tech bros"? There are AI developers. If they team with some lawyers to double-check and they get good case law data -- I can guarantee you it isn't a huge jump to create a disruptive AI based on that.

Revisit these comments in about a year. The main thing that will hinder AI in the legal world is humans suing it to not be allowed. Of course, all those attorneys will use it and then proof the output. And sign their names. And appear in court with nice suits and make deals. And they won't let AI be used in court because it is not allowed. For reasons.

The excuse that it can give an inaccurate result does put people at risk, so more effort is required for accuracy. But, AI will be able to pass the Bar exam easier than beat a human at chess.

It's not funny, but sad, that people are trying to convince themselves this is more complicated than writing a novel or creating art.

Thank you, you seemed to have missed it.

>legal documents require extremely specific and precise language.

Which computer software is really good at -- even before the improvements of AI.

>and anything beyond that requires actually knowing about law, which LLMs like ChatGPT are not capable of.

Yeah, lawyers memorize a lot of stuff and go to expensive schools. That doesn't mean it's actually all that complicated relative to programming, creating art or designing a mechanical arm.

I agree that document processing and search are going to see a lot of growth with AI. But being able to type in a few details about a case and have a legal document created, a discovery, and a bulk of all the bread and butter that is using the same templates over and over again with a few sentences changing -- that's going to be AI.

Most of what paralegals and lawyers do is repetitive and not all that creative.

An astute observation

These people don't seem to know the distinctions you are bringing up. Basically, it's like expecting someone in the middle ages to tell you how a rocket works.

The comments are "evil" or "good" and don't get that "evil and good" are results based on the data and the algorithm employed and how they were introduced to each other.

Chat GPT isn't just one thing. And if it's giving accurate or creative results, that's influenced by prompts, the dataset it is drawing from, and the vagaries of what set of algorithms they are using that day -- I'm sure it's constantly being tweaked.

And based on the tweaks, people have gotten wildly different results over time. I can be used to give accurate and useful code -- because they sourced that data from working code and set it to "not be creative" but it's understanding of human language helps do a much better job of searching for the right code to cut and paste. There's a difference between term papers and a legal document and a fictional story.

The current AI systems have shown they can "seem to comprehend" what people are saying and give them a creative and/or useful response. So that I think, proves it can do something easier like legal advice. A procedural body of rules with specific results and no fiction is ridiculously simple compared to creative writing or carrying on a conversation with people.

We THINK walking and talking are easy because almost everybody does it. However, for most people -- it's the most complicated thing they've ever learned how to do. The hardest things have already been done quite well with AI -- so it's only a matter of time that they can do simpler things.

Getting a law degree does require SOME logic and creativity -- but it's mostly memorizing a lot of statutes, procedures, case law and rules. It's beyond ridiculous if we think THIS is going to be that hard for AI if the can converse and make good art.

>I went through Nintendo's logo history to see if it ever had three rings and as far I can tell it didn't.

You are working with a "creative AI" that is designed to give you a result you "like." Not one that is accurate.

AI can definitely be developed and trained on case law and give you valid answers. Whether or not they've done it with this tool is a very geeky question that requires people to look at the data and code.

Most of these discussions are off track because they base "can it be done" by current experience -- when the people don't even really know what tool was used.