But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

  • Balder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Me: I want you to lie to me about something.

    ChatGPT: Alright—did you know that Amazon originally started as a submarine sandwich delivery service before pivoting to books? Jeff Bezos realized that selling hoagies online wasn’t scalable, so he switched to literature instead.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Still not a lie still text that is statistically likely to fellow prior text produced by a model with no thought process that knows nothing

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Lie falsehood, untrue statement, while intent is important in a human not so much in a computer which, if we are saying can not lie also can not tell the truth

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          We aren’t computers we are people. We are having this discussion about the computer. The computer given a massive corpus of input is about to discern that the following text and responses are statistically likely to follow one another

          foo = bar

          foo != bar you lied to me!

          yes I lied sorry foo = foo

          The computer doesn’t “know” foo it has no model of foo or how it relates to bar. it just knows the statistical likelihood of = bar following the token foo vs other possible token. YOU the user introduced the token lie and foo != bar to it and it discerned that it admitting it was a likely response especially if the text foo = bar is only comparatively weakly related.

          EG it will end up doubling down vs admitting more so when many responses contained similar sequences eg when its better supported by actual people’s thoughts and words. All the smarts and the ability to think, to lie, to have any motivation whatsoever come from the people’s words fed into the model. It isn’t in any way shape or form intelligent. It can’t per se lie, or even hallucinate. It has no thoughts and no intents.

      • Balder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yeah, I know how LLMs work, but still, if the definition of lying is giving some false absurd information knowing it is absurd you can definitely instruct an LLM to “lie”.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          A crucial part of your statement is that it knows that it’s untrue, which it is incapable of. I would agree with you if it were actually capable of understanding.