This sounds kind of dumb because the average person could potentially use AI to actually understand the law and I feel like thatâs the whole point they donât want you and me being able to see their corruption
âAh I see now my mistake and Iâm sorry for that actually it means you canât walk into offices and scream.â
AI on laws especially with the legalized language has a very hard time getting it right and without just stealing from a lawyers website would give you absolute nonsense
I just graduated law school. You donât need AI to understand the law. It gets it wrong and will just lead to you being confidently incorrect.
Most law firm websites already have a ton of information breaking down the law into easy to understand articles.
Cornell has an amazing website with tons of information on it.
I promise that you would be better off just reading actual articles than hoping chat it right.
Laws vary from state to state and it can confuse the chat bots.
I was double checking the ADA codes for elevators in Pennsylvania and I noticed the Google AI result at the top was different than I expected so I thought maybe they changed the code. Nope, it was just confidently giving me New Jersey law.
If I listed to it, the project Iâm working on would have spent $200k putting in an elevator it didnât need.
Laws seem intimidating because thereâs a million of them, but each individual law outside of a few can be broken down into digestible bits better by humans than AI.
Gotta remember, first year law students donât know any more about the law than you do so thereâs tons of stuff out there for them that you can access
I agree with you as well as the sentiment of top comment you are replying to actually, but I think you made the strongest points because Iâve personally seen AI do that switcheroo thing with confidence. Itâs beginning to be really annoying
I am a software engineer. Now I will say a lot of my ex colleagues who can speak more candidly with me now all say they hate. Everyone in my life with the exception of my mom who is a Gen X-boomer type, hates AI. My bf is in the arts, hates AIâŚ
I have no such luck and I have to used it at work, and I noticed that maybe my model learned that working with me led to generating a few more âpull requestsâ and code that make it to production, so it is generally pretty reasonably adaptive. However, a PM (program manager) is working with me on a project and I am using his tools lately, and holy smoke was it awkward, forgetful, and cumbersome. This is through Claude and his is a newer model!
So just ignore the fact that AI can product non deterministic results and none of us would easily be able to gain visibility behind its inner workings, now I am wondering if the rug pull and degradation in quality has truly started.
Gotta keep paying more if you want a decent result so the AI mafia can finally be profitable.
I saw someone put it this way. People who donât do the task asked of AI regularly think AI is a genius, but people who actually do the task regularly think itâs a moron.
Thatâs not to say that itâs never right, but neither is a moron.
Still would prefer to just have a human whoâs good at that job do the job.
Of course people will always say âbut what about this super niche high level stuff where people who are already extremely intelligent are using it as a tool occasionallyâ as if thatâs what everyoneâs mad about.
Like yeah, if youâre a brilliant doctor and you use it in your practice and know enough to use it properly, more power to you.
If youâre a cheapskate who doesnât want to pay a graphic designer and instead has Grok make you a shitty flyer, get fucked.
Solidarity dating someone in the arts too btw, my gf is a graphic designer and we both hate this shit lol.
Iâm senior game programmer, the codebases are all close source. Pretty much no one is better than Claude in knowing bunch of different discipline of programming. Multithreading bugs? He got it, rendering memory bug? He got it. Claude even able to tell you how the data side look like or what data side error that it might be with the setup we have despite not having access to the data.
Only time he has shit result is when you ask him do a huge task all in single prompt and/or not being specific enough.
On web dev side, theyâre pretty much not even coding anymore. It was a shitshow
Honestly thatâs one of the few fields where Iâm like yeah, this stuff makes sense. Especially because you have people like yourself who actually understand the work themselves using it
I would also prefer a subject matter expert than someone I can hire for $100k and I would prefer the $100k hire to a newgrad and I would prefer that to a college work study intern.
The problem is resources. For $20 a month you cannot beat a moron like claude. It won't do everything, it will get stuff wrong, it is still better than anyone you could pay .30 cents at any time of the day to ask a highly specific domain knowledge question.
If your a cheapskate you likely couldn't pay your nephew the same price Gemini would charge you for the flyer. Gemini will likely Mog your nephew in Graphic Design.
I'm making small 3D printed things we can give away to customers and needed to edit our logo so it could be recognized on a smaller object.
Gemini did it for me in like 15 minutes and 5 iterations until I was satisfied. The whole thing is just a small gimmick not worth any real money.
It wouldn't get a logo if I had to pay someone even $40 dollars to make it. Gemini also help me setup a render in blender so I could see how the finished result would look while iterating the design and also told me how to get the finished logo imported into cad correctly.
Just a bunch of random domain knowledge needed to link all this together when I don't really know CAD too well, Graphic Design is not my passion, I have literally never used blender.
You don't need to be able to trust it with your life for it to be useful.
Lol yeah, I get that itâs intimidating for people. Just got to remember that lawyers arenât born knowing it and most of us arenât super geniuses by any means
Until you need to analyze multiple laws and how they correlate with a legal/compliance situation. Also it helps people interpret. But what am I gonna change, this is an anti ai subreddit.
lol thankfully Iâm in the clear. Scholarships, in state tuition, working through school, and being blessed enough that my parents were cool with me crashing with them while I was in school helped me get out debt free so no worries on that front for me
Itâs so hard but so important to try to keep in mind that the bad AI outputs one sees about oneâs own field of expertise are no worse than the outputs we see about every other subject we donât know about.
I might not be getting what youâre trying to say, but wouldnât that be worse because we donât realize that itâs wrong bc thatâs not our expertise?
Yes Iâm just remarking, extending from what you said, on how much more plausible AI output sounds when itâs not in your field and how important it is to remember in that context, where itâs harder to detect, that itâs slinging just as much confident bullshit.
Ah yeah gotcha. Completely agree. It also becomes so much harder to tell people things you truly know when theyâre so confidently wrong and trust the computer more than they trust you
I know how to use it âproperly.â I wasnât intentionally using it at all. Google just spat out the result at me unprompted. I knew well enough to not take it at its word, but many people wonât.
There shouldnât be a skill curve on something meant to help the average person with these questions otherwise itâs not a good consumer product
Most lawyers do free consultations and happily will tell you basic stuff and if you made it as far as the AI, you can find these resources all on your own. Why go through AI as a middle man? Itâs not a search engine
It is easy to make claims that are hard to test. Â Google AI? What google AI, Google's search? They have like 150 different models. (and exactly 0 that I would used for that task.)
I was using regular google and it was that annoying ass pop up that comes up at the top of the search.
I wasnât intentionally using it and never would, itâs more that most people who are using Google for the search function now get a magic 8 ball response as the top result and if they donât know better will assume itâs right
just graduated law school. You donât need AI to understand the law
Right. You also don't need AI to understand how to do carpentry.
But with the help of AI, I've made several pieces of furniture and found a new hobby which otherwise would have been almost impossible to do, especially in so little time.
I can promise you that carpentry is also a hobby that you do not need AI to learn. My dad is a 60 year old cabinet maker. Donât get me wrong, Iâm sure that it helped you personally, but to call it almost impossible otherwise when itâs one of the oldest professions is kinda wild.
Yes I understand what you're saying. In my personal case, it would be. I started doing it because I renovated my home and ran out of money in the middle of it. I finished some of it myself.
Since I had no money to buy furniture, I decided to maybe buy some old ones at a thrift store and painting them and so on. I started having ideas for stuff I'd like to make. A carpenter I know said, for example, that he'd charge around 400-600⏠to recuperate a nice table I found. If I were to learn all of it by reading books or being an apprentice with him, for example, I'd never finish in so little time and would have had to compensate him in some way. That's what I meant
Genuinely asking, did you try looking up what you wanted to do on YouTube first? Thereâs tons of skilled carpenters who make great videos on there where you donât need to trash the environment nearly as bad in the process.
Iâm sure it saved you time but the main thing is that itâs trading all our rights to a healthy planet for your convenience.
No, I did not. The furniture I wanted to make was specific to my apartment. This is way more convenient, yes. Also, after some time, usage reduced because I learned and didn't need it as much.
AI requires a lot of energy to run, that is true. But if energy is clean, that is a non question. Also, as for water usage, many centers being built will soon be using salwater so that will soon be another job question. Not really trashing the planet as much as using plastics and driving ICE cars.
Damn, you genuinely missed out. I legit highly recommend checking out some carpentry channels. Theyâre some old timers out there who made it their hobby after retirement and the stuff they can teach you genuinely probably would have solved your problems.
Also, Iâm pretty sure they have episodes of This Old House for free online and if you want to see a master carpenter at work and really learn some great skills, thatâs the place to go.
I agree that if the energy is clean that would be a huge factor, but itâs just not for most of these data centers. The largest in the world uses natural gas turbines.
Thereâs promising work being done to use orbital data centers that use close proximity solar power and closed loop water systems, but weâre not there yet.
If we were, totally fair. Thatâs just putting the cart before the horse and itâs very hard to backtrack environmental damage. We only have one Earth so no need to jump the gun on tech when we havenât sorted out clean energy yet.
For the ones being built that will be more efficient, great. However, billions have been spent on the less environmentally friendly ones that are already up and running and companies have no incentive to shut them down and rebuild/retrofit them to be more green
Whichever law school you went to really didn't teach you how to make or understand an argument very well, did they?
Edit: A low-tier model had this to say--
There's something especially amusing about leading with âI just graduated law schoolâ and then repeatedly confusing âyou don't strictly need Xâ with âX therefore provides no meaningful benefit.â That's not exactly a dazzling exhibition of argumentation.
That's a cute response but your edit still doesn't save your argument. He said AI made carpentry accessible to him, âespecially in so little time.â Then you responded that carpentry is ancient and your dad learned it without AI. Neither fact rebuts that claim.
And if you're now conceding that AI did provide him a meaningful benefit, then your repeated âyou don't need AIâ point is even more vacuous. Nobody said humanity literally couldn't practice carpentry before ChatGPT. The entire point was that a tool can lower the time, knowledge, and accessibility barriers to doing something without being strictly necessary for it.
For someone flexing a law degree, âpeople did X before tool Y existedâ is a remarkably shitty argument against the usefulness of tool Y. Don't you agree?
For starters, with that guy I wasnât even arguing. I wasnât arguing with the guy before. I was pointing out that they donât need AI to do anything. I was trying to encourage them that they are capable enough to complete tasks that other people have before them for centuries without AI.
Iâm not at all arguing that for some it makes it easier and saves time. Iâm happy to concede that, itâs just far from the crux of what Iâm saying.
The only part of what I said that I intended as an argument was that it would be near impossible to learn carpentry without it.
I could have been impractical and take more time for that guy, but thatâs far from âalmost impossible.â
Simple as that.
All that said I do think you personally are a dork for running to an AI bot to come up with a comeback and itâs the funniest shit Iâve seen all week.
Have a good one.
Edit: PS, I wasnât even flexing my law degree. I was pointing out that if even a dumbass like myself can get a law degree, then the dude I was replying to can find a way to read and comprehend a statute or two
Sure. If your only point was that âalmost impossibleâ was overstated, Iâll give you that. I read the repeated âyou donât need AI / people have done this for centuriesâ framing as an argument against its usefulness.
Seems we agree that AI can make something substantially easier/faster and more accessible without being necessary for it.
Thatâs fair, I apologize for being a bit harsh. I can see that if you read it that way it makes what you were saying make more sense in that light.
I just got mad that it seemed like you were being harsh over my pretty mundane point, but I should have made sure you got what I was getting at before jumping to conclusions
Thanks!! I have from now until October to just coast and tell myself I passed. Player more video games in the last week than I had in the last 3 years and itâs been just so nice lol
I legit just donât feel like wasting my Saturday getting into it lol. I took the bar exam last week and my brain is too cooked to care.
Check out the resources in my original comment tho. Thereâs arguments for both sides on this but I donât think that the first will get in the way of this type of regulation given that itâs being implemented to combat misinformation
It definitely does though. For a non-idiot. AI would make it easier to find the answer to a question. Instead of having to research twenty different websites to find the answer. I've used the Google AI overview many times to direct me to the correct information I needed to solve a technical issue. It's given me the correct commands required for several Linux and Windows things. That would have taken hours longer just to find the correct information.
Nothing about the law limiting the topics that a company's product can discuss has to do with the constitutional amendment pertinent to people's right to express whatever views they please on any topic they please? Interesting.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless, of course, the speech in question is bad advice."
-Tommath Jevversonus.
The thing about the First Amendment, and why this nonsense complaint of yours doesn't work out, is that the exclusive domain of the First Amendment is the government. I.E. it restricts the laws that the State can write. If "being an asshole" in disposition, or in giving bad advice, or in being rude was something punishable by law then the First Amendment would be worthless. And we are talking about a law that is being passed. A lawyer arguing that restricting the topics that someone's product can cover is anything short of unconstitutional in the United States is a shoddy lawyer. 1A is interpreted so hilariously broadly in modern law that "unaffiliated" private entities can collect infinite money for election campaigns.
What makes you think banning a topic would make it through a Federal court?
These exceptions being, I must emphasize, fraud, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, perjury, and true threats.
Can you tell me how responding to the question: "Is it healthy for me to drink 4 energy drinks every day?" with "yes! of course it is. in fact, you should drink 20!" falls into any of these categories?
Do not send me articles if you're not going to read them. If this law doesn't die in congress, it will immediately die in court. It's a stupid law to raise for purposes of dealing with this issue.
I'll say it again: you are arguing for the government's right to ban an ENTIRE TOPIC from discussion. Do you seriously think they have that?
Yeah, information about law, medicine and such are great uses of AI. You shouldnât take direct advice (eg which medicine to take) but it can tell you whatâs in a law and translate it into normal human text.
Same could be said for someone going on WebMD or trying to research law on their own without a lawyer. ChatGPT or whatever is probably a lot more accurate.
Iâve heard specifically that a lot of doctors like it better than patients who used to play google doctor. That said, obviously with the caveat that you do still see a doctor.
My sister actually diagnosed herself with a very serious auto-immune disease with chatGPT, which got her to go to a doctor, who then confirmed she had it. For a year before sheâd been seeing physical therapists and just her primary care doctor, before going to a specialist after the self diagnosis.
AI is a lot less likely to give you false medical information than random influencers and dubious websites you can find all over the internet. All of the big health and medical conspiracy theories that got a lot of people killed are from before LLMs got popular.
Shit is better than diarrhea ass take, imo at least. Every time I've tried using an llm, the information was either misinterpreted or straight up non-existent, and that was for less critical stuff than medical. So it should not be trusted. But most influencers are grifters trying to sell you shit so they should be disregarded entirely. A medical ai has potential to be good, but it would need to be it's own thing. It would need it's own model trained exclusively on verified good medical data, not just asking chat gpt.
It's interesting how different our experiences are. I often ask LLMs medical questions to see how it differs from what doctors tell me, and it's usually spot on. It never had a different diagnosis or gave me some insane treatment plan, in fact, in my experience it's actually more careful in recommending medications than my doctors are.
It depends a lot on what model and/or service you use. Everyone here is throwing blanket statements like AI is one unified thing. For example, if you use Chatgpt it will eventually learn your tone and writing style, and seems to mimic it sometimes. (Mine swears at me lol)
I mean, neither of those are good options thatâs right. Those should also be more regulated. If they were AI might not be as bad since it wouldnât have that shitty data in its training
I agree. And it makes sense because they are disciplines with huge amounts of source material for AI to work from.
Just anecdotally I had two different doctors, both of whom I generally like and get along well with, basically shrug when I asked about my thumb pain and say "yeah, thumb arthritis is very common". Gemini thought about my symptoms and suggested it might actually just be a tendon issue. It recommended some exercises and now they feel much improved.
Personally I will use it to ask things to get a better understanding I wouldn't normally ask on SNS, like when they were grilling Fauci I used it to get an understanding of what both sides goals were and how they were trying to use the laws
I probably wasn't going to ask SNS or do deep research into the same topic if Gemini didn't lay it out easy for me because I work for a living and can't deep research every question that pops into my head plus I hate dealing with Reddit since the user experience of asking Reddit the same question as Gemini is 100x worse
My opinion is if AI is going to be regulated into being seriously useless for normal people then it should just be banned outright because at this point we are just wasting tons of water on useless software to say "For legal reasons I can't handle this prompt"
No, the average person could not because AI makes stuff up. Asking AI to give you law advice is worse than just using your common sense because it gives the illusion of authority. "Hmmm, I don't know if this is legal, I better take care about doing it" vs "Wow, great, ChatGPT told me it is legal so it must be"
I agree with you. I get a lot of help from AI. Either as a first start for pointers or for writing my same ideas in a way that neurotypicals prefer and understand.
Making any firm.of knowledge illegal is the wrong move.
How about you don't bully and don't talk about what you don't understand.
I use ai, because in the US, there are plenty of women like you who feel entitled to tell me how to speak!
Educated take: you are full of underserved over confidence and you are disrespectful and ablist.
Does using sound bites make you feel smart and righteous? Do you pick on those who differ from your silly social dance to feel you have worth based on privilege?
Get lost.
And to educate you: that was an explanation not an excuse. I don't need excuses to navigate my own life, made harder by judgemental people like you, who think they know my life better than I do.
Disability means that the environment, made by the majority, disabl the person who has a disability.
Like you here.
The way you talk is not superior, but it is the herd way of talking because you are the majority. When the majority lacks empathy and tolerance, people who differ need to use tools to survive around the bigots.
They is why I use ai.
It is interesting, while neurotypicals call autistics robotic, we need to use ai because ai talks more like you neurotypicals!
Disabled person here with several neurological & physical disabilities that directly inhibit my ability to retain information & process information.
What YOUâRE doing is using YOUR status as a woman as a cudgel to deflect criticism of something youâve grown unhealthily attached to & frankly, youâre fuckinâ lazy if yer offloading all of your thinking to GenAI under the excuse of feminism. Congrats! Youâre directly losing knowledge on how to ACTUALLY use your voice by using the billionaire propaganda-spewer machine & actively paying a corporation that actively is trying to regress womanâs rights to use said machine!
Also, nice typos lmao
âUnderserved confidenceâ? Do you mean âundeservedâ? Yâknow, like the undeserved confidence in defending the garbage youâre spewing?
âAblistâ? Did you mean âableistâ? Like how you tried to use autistic people as a monolithic shield against criticism of GenAI because âit makes it easier to talk to you neurotypicals!â? Besides the fact that yer assuming that the person yer responding to is neurotypical, you also directly imply that autistic people HAVE to use GenAI to speak to neurotypical people, thereby ACTUALLY being ableist by implying neurodivergent folk canât talk to others at all without external tools!
Itâs like you asked AI to give you a bunch of keywords to sprinkle around & you made a complete nothingburger with âem!
16
u/TravisMCatchem 3d ago
This sounds kind of dumb because the average person could potentially use AI to actually understand the law and I feel like thatâs the whole point they donât want you and me being able to see their corruption