undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleereeves3y ago0 comments

Why assume malice? Asking ChatGPT to verify is exactly what someone who trusts ChatGPT might do.

I'm not surprised this lawyer trusted ChatGPT too much. People trust their lives to self driving cars, trust their businesses to AI risk models, trust criminal prosecution to facial recognition. People outside the AI field seem to be either far too trusting or far too suspicious of AI.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

acka3y ago· 1 in thread

Quoted directly from my last session with ChatGPT mere seconds ago:

> Limitations

May occasionally generate incorrect information

May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content

Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021

---

A lawyer who isn't prepared to read and heed the very obvious warnings at the start of every ChatGPT chat isn't worth a briefcase of empty promises.

WARNING: witty ending of previous sentence written with help from ChatGPT.

leereevesOP3y ago

I agree the lawyer shouldn't have trusted ChatGPT, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that the lawyer bears all the responsibility for using ChatGPT and Microsoft/OpenAI bear no responsibility for creating it.

"May occasionally generate incorrect information" is not a sufficient warning. Even Lexis-Nexis has a similar warning: "The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the Content is not warranted or guaranteed."

And in any case, it seems like you agree with me that the lawyer was incompetent rather than malicious.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse