AI 'hallucinated' fake legal cases filed to B.C. court in Canadian first

2024-01-248:5143112globalnews.ca

Lawyers Lorne and Fraser MacLean told Global News they discovered fake case law submitted by the opposing lawyer in a civil case in B.C. Supreme Court.

A B.C. courtroom is believed to be the site of Canada’s first case of artificial intelligence inventing fake legal cases.

Lawyers Lorne and Fraser MacLean told Global News they discovered fake case law submitted by the opposing lawyer in a civil case in B.C. Supreme Court.

“The impact of the case is chilling for the legal community,” Lorne MacLean, K.C., said.

“If we don’t fact check AI materials and they are inaccurate it can lead to an existential threat for the legal system: people waste money, courts waste resources and tax dollars, and there is a risk that the judgments will be erroneous, so its a huge deal.”

Click to play video: 'Examining AI in the courtroom'
Examining AI in the courtroom

Sources told Global News the case was a high-net-worth family matter, with the best interests of children at stake.

Story continues below advertisement

Laywer Chong Ke allegedly used ChatGPT to prepare legal briefs in support of the father’s application to take his children to China for a visit — resulting in one or more cases that do not actually exist being submitted to the court.

Global News has learned Ke told the court she was unaware that AI chatbots like ChatGPT can be unreliable, and did not check to see if the cases actually existed — and apologized to the court.

Ke left the courtroom with tears streaming down her face on Tuesday, and declined to comment.

Get the latest National news. Sent to your email, every day.

AI chatbots like ChatGPT are known to sometimes make up realistic sounding but incorrect information, a process known as “hallucination.

The problem has already crept into the U.S. legal system, where several incidents have surfaced — embarrassing lawyers, and raising concerns about the potential to undermine confidence in the legal system.

In one case, a judge imposed a fine on New York lawyers who submitted a legal brief with imaginary cases hallucinated by ChatGPT — an incident the lawyers maintained was a good-faith error.

In another case, Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen said in a court filing he accidentally gave his lawyer fake cases dreamed up by AI.

Click to play video: 'B.C. joins Ottawa’s ChatGPT privacy investigation'
B.C. joins Ottawa’s ChatGPT privacy investigation

“It sent shockwaves in the U.S. when it first came out in the summer of 2023 … shockwaves in the United Kingdom, and now it’s going to send shockwaves across Canada,” MacLean said.

Story continues below advertisement

“It erodes confidence in the merits of a judgment or the accuracy of a judgment if its been based on false cases.”

Legal observers say the arrival of the technology — and its risks — in Canada should have lawyers on high alert.

“Lawyers should not be using ChatGPT to do research. If they are to be using chatGPT it should be to help draft certain sentences,” said Vancouver lawyer Robin Hira, who is not connected with the case.

“And even still, after drafting those sentences and paragraphs they should be reviewing them to ensure they accurately state the facts or they accurately address the point the lawyer is trying to make.”

Lawyer Ravi Hira, K.C., who is also not involved in the case, said the consequences for misusing the technology could be severe.

“If the court proceedings have been lengthened by the improper conduct of the lawyer, personal conduct, he or she may face cost consequences and the court may require the lawyer to pay the costs of the other side,” he said.

“And importantly, if this has been done deliberately, the lawyer may bein contempt of court and may face sanctions.”

Click to play video: 'U.S. Congress holds hearing on risks, regulation of AI: ‘Humanity has taken a back seat’'
U.S. Congress holds hearing on risks, regulation of AI: ‘Humanity has taken a back seat’

Hira said lawyers who misuse tools like ChatGPT could also face discipline from the law society in their jurisdiction.

Story continues below advertisement

“The warning is very simple,” he added. “Do you work properly. You are responsible for your work. And check it. Don’t have a third party do your work.”

The Law Society of BC warned lawyers about the use of AI and provided guidance three months ago. Global News is seeking comment from the society to ask if it is aware of the current case, or what discipline Ke could face.

The Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court also issued a directive last March telling judges not to use AI, and Canada’s federal court followed suit last month.

In the case at hand, the MacLeans said they intend to ask the court to award special costs over the AI issue.

However, Lorne MacLean said he’s worried this case could be just the tip of the iceberg.

“One of the scary things is, have any false cases already slipped through the Canadian justice system and we don’t even know?”

— with files from Rumina Daya


Read the original article

Comments

  • By happymellon 2024-01-249:544 reply

    > In one case, a judge imposed a fine on New York lawyers who submitted a legal brief with imaginary cases hallucinated by ChatGPT — an incident the lawyers maintained was a good-faith error.

    They need to be disbarred. Submitting legal filings that contain errors because you used ChatGPT to make up crap is the opposite of a "good-faith" error.

    • By leereeves 2024-01-2410:032 reply

      > They need to be disbarred.

      In that NY case, they were only fined $5000 each, which seems like a slap on the wrist.

      I think the court was sympathetic to them, as was I. They were the first lawyers to get burned by ChatGPT. How were they supposed to know that a highly publicized product from a major tech company would just make shit up?

      But the penalty for lawyers who do it now, after the first case got so much publicity, should be more severe.

      • By happymellon 2024-01-2410:062 reply

        Hard disagree.

        They should have taken a look at what they were submitting. That is literally their job.

        • By LtWorf 2024-01-2413:56

          When we had to register the ownership transfer of our family home, despite taking YEARS to prepare the documents, the notary hadn't even bothered to look up the name of the street on google maps and wrote the wrong name on the contract. So we had to waste 1h just to fix that.

          They get paid in % of the value of the property being transferred, and can't even spend 2 minutes to write the name of the correct street.

        • By leereeves 2024-01-2410:081 reply

          By "taken a look at what they were submitting", I assume you mean use a different tech product, like LexisNexis? In the end you're still trusting technology.

          And technology was usually trustworthy, until AI. If Google Scholar cited a legal case, I wouldn't doubt its existence.

          It took some time for people to recalibrate for this new world where technology lies.

          • By unsupp0rted 2024-01-2410:151 reply

            Whatever tool they used, even if it’s microfiche or a roll of sheepskin, their eyes should have looked at the contents of the case they were citing, before they submitted it to a judge.

            If I had to submit code to a judge that decided the life of a person, I’d be reading through my NPM dependencies file by file, if not line by line.

            • By leereeves 2024-01-2410:291 reply

              In an idealized world, with infinite time and no financial constraints. In the real world, clients get screwed over all the time because they can't afford to pay lawyers that much.

              It's a shame that ChatGPT isn't trustworthy, because if it were, it could really help reduce the cost of legal representation and create a fair legal system.

              • By williamcotton 2024-01-2411:201 reply

                A small fish can get investors that put up the cash necessary to fight a big fish in a civil suit, as long as the ROI makes it worthwhile!

                • By williamcotton 2024-01-2414:24

                  This is not hypothetical. This is a regular occurrence in civil suits in the US.

                  Don’t shoot the messenger?

      • By karmakaze 2024-01-2416:52

        > I think the court was sympathetic [...] They were the first lawyers to get burned by ChatGPT.

        This makes it even more important to strongly discourage such conduct. Unless (cynic me) considers all the $5K fines they'll collect.

    • By jeroenhd 2024-01-2410:33

      I'm not sure if disbarring is appropriate here, but then again I'm no legal professional.

      I don't know what the appropriate response would be to a lawyer lying to the court and making up facts. I don't think something as bad as making up lawsuits even happens in normal legal proceedings. I'd presume fines and other types of punishment, depending on if the lawyer is stupid enough to lie about using ChatGPT like in the American case.

      The person who made the mistake of hiring this lawyer will probably have grounds to sue them for malpractice, especially if they end up losing this case. I know I'd want my money back if my lawyer didn't even bother to read the paperwork they were filing.

      This lawyer will now have "lawyer lied to the court" show up the moment you Google their name. I think that, plus a hefty fine, is more than enough punishment. Whether or not their future clients will trust them after this is up to them.

    • By matheusmoreira 2024-01-2410:153 reply

      A fine is appropriate. There's no reason to destroy someone's life because of this. There are numerous forms of disciplinary actions available that don't involve needlessly and permanently destroying a person's livelihood.

      • By happymellon 2024-01-2410:21

        Lawyers submitting fake briefs that they could be bothered to review destroys someone's life.

        This would just mean they can't be a lawyer.

      • By PoignardAzur 2024-01-2410:46

        Does disbarment really destroys someone's life? It considerably reduces their career options and it means they'll probably get much less wealthy than they would otherwise have been, but they can still find another job.

        By contrast, if a lawyer makes a mistake that gets someone a criminal record they didn't deserve, that person has much more ground to say it destroyed their life.

      • By vdaea 2024-01-2410:263 reply

        [flagged]

        • By jeroenhd 2024-01-2410:41

          I don't think cases like these are comparable to bumping into another car. Legal proceedings can have life altering effects, and lawyers are trusted to take that responsibility. In this case, we're talking about a family that wants to visit China, and I'm not sure if they'll be punished for their lawyers incompetence, but civil lawyers will also deal with life-changing amounts of money. This isn't just their own reputation and livelihood they're putting on the line.

          I don't think this particular lawyer should be disbarred, but I do think submitting lies and confabulations to the court should be punished strictly. Attempts to deceive the court should not be tolerated, especially not when the lawyer didn't even do to the work they put their signature under.

          The justice system is screwed up more than enough, we don't need professionals getting away with this crap to make it even worse.

        • By Ekaros 2024-01-2411:58

          Imagine if doctor did some operation from first result in google search. Without verifying that it is correct one or even presented correctly. Should they not lose their medical license?

          Using LLM to produce document and then not verifying each part is wilful negligence. Either they do not care to do right thing. Or they are too ignorant. In both cases disbarring seems reasonable. They can always go to fast food or something after it.

        • By elzbardico 2024-01-2411:06

          I found out that people are more evil and cruel in general than what I believed. The internet just made it first explicitly and later, socially acceptable.

    • By speedgoose 2024-01-2410:004 reply

      If the user didn't understand that ChatGPT make up crap sometimes, despite the warnings everywhere about it that they may not read, it could still be a good-faith error to me. ChatGPT was just released.

      • By happymellon 2024-01-2410:05

        If the user doesn't understand their tool then they should review what it spits out.

        > I found a guy who claims to have the sum of all knowledge, and I've just copied and pasted code from him that I haven't reviewed.

        Then either your an idiot and should be disbarred or you are negligent and should be disbarred. As a lawyer you have people's lives in your hands, this is not the time for "woops, sorry I just couldn't be arsed to read what I submitted".

      • By unsupp0rted 2024-01-2410:011 reply

        If the user is a lawyer who officially referenced a case that a) they never read and b) never existed, then the user can’t be allowed to practice law anymore.

        • By CPLX 2024-01-2410:212 reply

          Every single lawyer references cases they never actually read in every filing.

          • By averageRoyalty 2024-01-2510:57

            Then we're discovering together that they all should be disbarred then....

      • By orangesite 2024-01-2410:13

        The demo: AI so powerful it's a literal existential risk for humanity!

        v1.0: You should be disbarred for using our product and assuming the output would make any sense whatsoever.

      • By corobo 2024-01-2410:32

        If the user doesn't understand their tools maybe they should delegate to someone that does before they rely on the results

        Especially if they're a lawyer! Llmao

  • By yosito 2024-01-249:446 reply

    The danger of "AI" is that we actually believe the plausible fabrications it produces are "intelligent". The other day, I debated a guy who thought that the utopian future was governments run by AI. He was convinced that the AI would always make the perfect, optimal decision in any circumstance. The scary thing to me is that LLMs are probably really good at fabricating the kind of brain dead lies that get corrupt politicians into power.

    • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-249:547 reply

      > The danger of "AI" is that we actually believe the plausible fabrications it produces are "intelligent".

      100% this!

      I'm fed up with seemingly rational people who just can't comprehend that the AI hype is just sales talk.

      I had to convince a customer the other day we cannot write whole apps with ChatGPT. As far as I know, not a single example exists of a full app written by ChatGPT. It just can't be done, because ChatGPT is not reasoning!!! It is not intelligent.

      It can just spit out seemingly coherent, but often incorrect, snippets of code.

      I think it's best described as a word-calculator, or autocomplete on crack, in the sense that it is great on guessing what comes next. But it has no reasoning behind it's predictions, only statistics.

      EDIT: The AI apologetics are downvoting me LOL

      • By soulofmischief 2024-01-2410:021 reply

        Are we using the same ChatGPT?

        It cannot write a full app, but that is a matter of context size.

        It absolutely can "reason" within bounds, attention is a much more powerful system than you realize.

        Chain-of-Thought is a well-established technique for LLM prompting which can produce great results. And the snippets of code GPT-4 generates for me are usually on point, at least they were until OpenAI dumbed the model down in the last few months with GPT-4-Turbo.

        I get it not only to write novel code, but explain existing code all the time and it reasons about my code very well.

        • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:071 reply

          Ahh.. I didn't pay for the premium version, that is why I am not convinced. /s

          • By soulofmischief 2024-01-2615:48

            I don't know what to tell you if you think you're entitled to a completely free cutting-edge service that takes multiple dedicated GPUs to serve your requests.

      • By kombookcha 2024-01-2410:04

        >autocomplete on crack

        I have had some really frustrating conversations about this very topic with people insisting on using it for complex tasks like designing business strategies. It doesn't know how to actually answer your question, it's just spitting out probable words associated with the topic in a plausible sequence! It's like Quora with spellcheck and an aura of legitimacy which makes it infinitely more seductive.

      • By robbiep 2024-01-2410:022 reply

        I’ve actually used a mates replit chained gpt-4 app to build short single function apps from a single command that function on first run, so it’s definitely possible, and will only get better - but building code is just following a logical set of instructions down a pathway

        • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:08

          "Single function app".. how is that different from a snippet?

          Show me a proper app generated by ChatGPT.

          You can't, because ChatGPT can't.

        • By player1234 2024-01-2410:301 reply

          It will only get better, based on what? A true believer just knows.

          • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:431 reply

            Reminds me of the latest excuse from OpenAI: https://news.yahoo.com/ai-needs-nuclear-power-breakthrough-1...

            (its not the tech that are wrong, we just don't have enough energy in the world).

            • By ben_w 2024-01-2414:15

              Sam Altman is also a non-trivial investor in various nuclear energy R&D companies, e.g. $375 million into Helion, so take that "need" with a pinch of salt. He made a bet, presumably because he already believes, but it's human nature to try to justify your decisions after the fact and not just before.

      • By JimDabell 2024-01-2410:141 reply

        > I'm fed up with seemingly rational people who just can't comprehend that the AI hype is just sales talk.

        The reason why you see rational people believe the AI hype is that AI is a lot better than you give it credit for. They are right.

        > I had to convince a customer the other day we cannot write whole apps with ChatGPT. As far as I know, not a single example exists of a full app written by ChatGPT. It just can't be done

        It can. When it first came out, I wanted a macOS menu bar app so that I could access ChatGPT conversations from the menu bar. I’d never written a macOS app before. I told it what I wanted, it wrote the whole thing in one go. There was one minor compile error (a type signature had changed from a previous version, if I remember correctly), which was a one-line fix. I iterated a couple of times, telling ChatGPT what improvements I wanted to make to the app. It did them.

        Would I use it to build a complex app? No. But it is capable of building a whole app.

        • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:202 reply

          > The reason why you see rational people believe the AI hype is that AI is a lot better than you give it credit for. They are right.

          I am sorry, but you are mistaken. There are no AI. The "AI" that is being mongered today is just a salespeople buzz word for Large Language Model technology, which is just that, a language model. It can be used to generate seemingly coherent text, but it can not reason.

          > Would I use it to build a complex app? No. But it is capable of building a whole app.

          It only works for you as you accept lowering the bar of that would pass as an "app".

          I mean of course any kind of normal app. Say Microsoft Paint for example.

          Show me ChatGPT able to create a full app like that based on business logic you prompted.

          • By ben_w 2024-01-2410:354 reply

            > it can not reason.

            As someone with an A-level in philosophy: What is reason?

            > I mean of course any kind of normal app. Say Microsoft Paint for example.

            The original, or the current one? Ironically, I think either would be a case where ChatGPT works best. The features in a raster graphics tool are very well isolated from each other.

            I'd expect ChatGPT to face-plant much more with any meta-level stuff, so a database that doesn't have a 1-1 correspondence with whatever appears in a UI for example.

            Or physics sims where you've got several layers of indirection that all need to be correct. I've never been able to get a complete working Navier–Stokes simulator out of it, for example.

            • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:411 reply

              > As someone with an A-level in philosophy: What is reason?

              Maybe you are better off answering that question then. But I would define ability to reason as the ability to make logic conclusions based on input from a feedback loop.

              Let's use programming as an example.

              You write some code you think will work. You run it. It outputs the wrong values. You reason about the code, realize your mistake. Fix the code. Run again. It outputs the correct values.

              ChatGPT cannot do any of this. All it can do, is spit out text that it deems probable to belong to previous text it already generated. This is based on probability, but it completely lacks a reasoning part and a feedback loop.

              > The original, or the current one? Ironically, I think either would be a case where ChatGPT works best.

              Show me a prompt that produces either one.

              • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:571 reply

                > ChatGPT cannot do any of this. All it can do, is spit out text that it deems probable to belong to previous text it already generated. This is based on probability, but it completely lacks a reasoning part and a feedback loop.

                50% of the time, if you give it source code and an error, it can fix the source code and tell you why. The other half I still get paid for.

                > Show me a prompt that produces either one.

                K, if I remember by the time I've done the higher priority things, I'll send you a repo with as much of it as I can be arsed to ask for to prove the point, along with the share link to the chat session.

                • By ben_w 2024-01-2422:171 reply

                  > Show me a prompt that produces either one.

                  Note how you only need to ask for each feature and in it goes. Sometimes there's a bug or three, but you can generally fix them by describing them.

                  https://chat.openai.com/share/e2a6b513-c088-449d-8d8f-4f4c73...

                  I won't ask for the rest of the features, because it's boring.

                  What I bring to the market right now, might be merely knowing what to ask.

                  --

                  Oh yeah, I said repo as well. Note the commits are copy pasting blindly. I don't do JS professionally, I'm an iOS dev: https://github.com/BenWheatley/JSPaint

                  • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-3112:33

                    You must be kidding right?

                    Your chat demonstrates most of what I brought up:

                    * it only spits out snippets

                    * it cannot produce an app

                    * it is hallucinating

                    * it is creating more work than just doing the work yourself

                    And its a web app, but that's on you for requesting that for some reason.

                    I asked for a MS Paint app. That would mean something that produce a Windows compatible EXE, not a some html fest.

                    > I won't ask for the rest of the features, because it's boring.

                    Or, because it's infeasible and you know it.

            • By kriops 2024-01-2411:461 reply

              Doesn't need answering. All we need to know is that reason requires logic. LLMs do not employ logic, thus they are not able to reason. They sometimes act as if reasonable by happenstance, but fundamentally they are not.

              • By ben_w 2024-01-2412:191 reply

                Transformer models are universal, which isn't very surprising given they're made of things which are also universal when configured right, so they absolutely can learn the rules of logic.

                Some say that reason requires consciousness, which I'm… frustrated by given the 50 common meanings of the word "consciousness"; but to merely use logic as your standard here?

                Why, of all the things people could object to in an LLM, why is logic what people want to pick on? It's the weakest possible objection IMO.

                • By kriops 2024-01-2511:511 reply

                  The set of models we're discussing haven't.

                  You were derailing with "reason" for no reason, so I pointed it out. That doesn't mean logic should be applied as some sort of universal standard.

                  • By ben_w 2024-01-2610:40

                    > The set of models we're discussing haven't.

                    Haven't what?

                    > You were derailing with "reason" for no reason

                    I was quoting someone else who said LLMs can't reason, and I'm asking them what they meant by that because ChatGPT sure acts like it reasons no matter what's going on "inside". I assume the inside to be a Transformer model because otherwise the naming is weird, but whatever it is, it acts like it learned to reason.

                    And I'm saying that despite wanting this to be a repeat of Clever Hans so I can go back to feeling optimistic about my economic future.

            • By defrost 2024-01-2410:47

              What is reason? No matter.

              and what is matter? Never mind.

          • By JimDabell 2024-01-2410:282 reply

            > It only works for you as you accept lowering the bar of that would pass as an "app".

            I asked it to create an app, it created the app I wanted. That’s not “lowering the bar”. You’re just redefining words to prop up your incorrect claims.

            • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:39

              Okay. Enjoy your AI infused career where you can knock out hello world apps in just a few minutes.

            • By yosito 2024-01-2412:52

              Prove it.

      • By _fizz_buzz_ 2024-01-249:581 reply

        Why didn't the customer write the whole app themselves with chatgpt?

        • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:031 reply

          They tried to show me what they meant.

          ChatGPT proceeded to spit out a snippet of rust code, starting with a dependecy outdated by 4 years, proceeeded to mix API from several versions of the dependency and completely ignored most of the request.

          Customer do not know rust so it looks amazing to them.

          ChatGPT is a great con-man for the gullible.

          • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:321 reply

            > ChatGPT proceeded to spit out a snippet of rust code, starting with a dependecy outdated by 4 years, proceeeded to mix API from several versions of the dependency and completely ignored most of the request.

            If that's what you meant, I think everyone here, including the people disagreeing with examples (e.g. me), would have agreed.

            What I mean with my examples is: it can do all the bits. Is it perfect? Nope. Do you still need a human in the loop to understand the failure modes? Yup. That MS paint app you asked for 45 minutes ago? Features are decomposable, so it can do this step by step, so long as you're OK adding one feature at a time instead of trying to do it all in one go — 75% of the results are fully functional and do what you asked for (which isn't always what you wanted, "tool selector" can be the CSS or the widget itself).

            • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2421:391 reply

              Some people used to write crap code stitching together snippets from stack overflow, now the same people write crap code stitching together what ChatGPT spit out after trained on said stackoverflow clusterfuck of buggy or flat out incorrect solutions. You do you.

              • By ben_w 2024-01-2422:291 reply

                And those people are now your competitors and customers.

                Worse (for all of us in this industry) sometimes there's a bug or three, but it can generally fix those bugs by you giving the source code (if the source didn't already come from the LLM) and simply describing the issue. Even when the bug is graphical in nature, which is pretty wild for a text based chat engine that can't see (like 3.5 is).

                And that's without applying my experience of any language or frameworks, e.g. when asking it for solutions in languages I don't have meaningful professional experience in, like JavaScript.

                When I can apply my experience, I cringe at the choices it comes up with, and find I want to use it as a rough guide rather than a complete answer. But you know who doesn't care about cringy code? Everyone who isn't a developer. Even QA only cares if it passes the tests.

                • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-3111:34

                  > And those people are now your competitors and customers.

                  For now, yes.

                  > When I can apply my experience, I cringe at the choices it comes up with, and find I want to use it as a rough guide rather than a complete answer. But you know who doesn't care about cringy code? Everyone who isn't a developer. Even QA only cares if it passes the tests.

                  This is a race to the bottom, surely you must understand that?

                  I expect some of the biggest tech companies to start limiting developer use of LLM:s soon due to the monumental technical debt they are creating.

                  More context: https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2024/01/25/copilot...

      • By williamcotton 2024-01-2411:25

        What matters is if the tool is useful or not.

        You cannot claim that this tool is not useful to people and use cases you are entirely unfamiliar with.

        Debates of what is real intelligence are akin to running around in circles.

      • By ben_w 2024-01-2410:331 reply

        """That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.""" - Yes Minister.

        To rephrase for the subject: We're only human, mistakes are to be expected; They are a idiots, mistakes are to be expected; that thing is just a glorified calculator, mistakes are to be expected.

        (There's a short story I found I couldn't bring myself to finish, “Zero for Conduct” by Greg Egan, where the lead character is bullied by someone who has a similar disregard for her intelligence; I know one cannot use fiction to learn about reality, so I will instead say that this disregard of human intelligence by other humans happens a lot in real life too, the racism and xenophobia of βαρβαρίζω can still be found today in all the people who insist that ancient structures like the pyramids couldn't possibly have been built by the locals and therefore it must have been aliens).

        > AI hype is just sales talk

        But where does the hype end and the reality begin?

        > I had to convince a customer the other day we cannot write whole apps with ChatGPT. As far as I know, not a single example exists of a full app written by ChatGPT. It just can't be done, because ChatGPT is not reasoning!!! It is not intelligent.

        I will agree ChatGPT does indeed make incoherent solutions — one test project was making a game in JS, it (eventually) gave me a vector class with methods for multiply(scalar) etc., but then tried to use mul(scalar).

        But ironically, I've also made a functioning (basic, but functioning) ChatGPT API interface… by bolting together the output of ChatGPT. I won't claim it's amazing or anything, because I'm an iOS developer and the thing "I" made is a web app, but it works well enough for my needs (just don't paste HTML into the query section, because I stopped adding to it when it was good enough for my needs and therefore only have a very basic solution to code being shown in the chat list, there's a lot of stuff that would be improved by using simple libraries but I didn't want to).

        > I think it's best described as a word-calculator, or autocomplete on crack.

        And that's the same error in the opposite direction.

        If I understand right, GPT-3 is literally the complexity of a mid-sized rodent. Thus the metaphor I use is:

        Imagine a ferret was generically modified to be immortal, had every sensory input removed except smell, which was wired up to a computer. The ferret and computer then spend 50,000 years going through 10% of all the text on the internet, where every sequence is tokenised and those tokens are turned into a pattern of olfactory nerves to stimulate, and the ferret is rewarded or punished based on how well it imagined the next token.

        You're annoyed that this specific ferret's jokes are derivative, their code doesn't always compile, that they make mistakes when trying to solve algebraic problems, that their pecan pie recipe needs work, and that they make mistakes when translating Latin into Hindi.

        I'm amazed the ferret can do any of these things.

        • By shzhdbi09gv8ioi 2024-01-2410:481 reply

          > If I understand right, GPT-3 is literally the complexity of a mid-sized rodent.

          You are not understanding things right, then.

          Intelligence is comprised of multiple complex systems. ChatGPT only ever claimed to focus on the language part. It does not contain reasoning.

          Even a rodent can reason.

          Much less complex organisms can reason, too.

          • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:251 reply

            > You are not understanding things right, then.

            GPT-3 has about the same number of free parameters as the number of synapses in a mid-sized rodent brain.

            > Intelligence is comprised of multiple complex systems. ChatGPT only ever claimed to focus on the language part. It does not contain reasoning.

            It (ChatGPT) is doing abstract symbol manipulation, unless you want to expand the idea of language to include chess positions (even if mediocrely), algebra, and the application of the rules of formal logic to the symbols used to represent those rules when it is so prompted.

            > Even a rodent can reason.

            > Much less complex organisms can reason, too.

            For which values of the meaning of the word "reason"? From your other comment "But I would define ability to reason as the ability to make logic conclusions based on input from a feedback loop."

            1. This is a terrible waste of computer power, in the order of multiple-trillions-to-one ratio, given logic is the underlying thing used to represent the numbers and floating point operations that approximate linear algebra that in turn is used to build LLMs.

            (A similar ratio is also found in human "logical" cognition, and is why we don't use logic all the time, hence the classic example of "a baseball bat & ball that cost $1.10 together, the bat is $1 more expensive than the ball, how much does a bat cost?" which so many get wrong).

            2. LLMs can do that anyway. Even literal flow charts are still doing that anyway, and LLMs can build flow charts.

            It still makes mistakes, sure, yup, but then the question is "how many compared to a human?" and that's terrifyingly close to humans and I'm just hoping it will remain on the same side, slightly worse — I mean, your own example is humans being fooled by it, so clearly you also know humans can be wildly wrong.

    • By Springtime 2024-01-2410:22

      I've wondered if the impression isn't so much caused by the answers themselves but a trust level has formed from its behavior. A core appeal of LLM bots is they're instructed to be non-judgemental and ever-helpful, so in most scenarios one won't 'butt heads' with them.

      This obviously has some real positives for learning (if the responses could be accurate) since you're more likely to continue eagerly the less ashamed you are asking 'dumb' questions to more rapidly gain an understanding of something (anonymous accounts online similarly facilitate shame-free question asking).

      I wonder though if it might be having an effect where people begin to prefer AI over humans since with real humans, whether online or IRL, there's no consistency of response—people could be cranky, disinterested in responding or criticize someone for even asking.

      So the more one interacts with an ever-willing, ever-pleasant, non-judgemental, human-esque answer machine—even if it's hallucinating things—I could see how it could become more of a go-to and even a trust begin to grow from familiarity and its generally polite ability to listen.

    • By blibble 2024-01-249:481 reply

      > The danger of "AI" is that we actually believe the plausible fabrications it produces are "intelligent".

      the thing I find scary is you see people on here believing this

      if a website full of techies can't tell the difference what chance do the general public have?

      I suspect the invention of the LLM will be the final nail in the coffin of liberal democracy (after the invention of social media)

      • By extheat 2024-01-249:52

        People should never have blindly trusted anything on the internet in the first place. As far as I’m aware, most of the fears like this are overrated. People will live, learn and adapt as we always have. Constantly complaining about doom and having pessimism about anything seemingly scary is not a great way to live a fulfilling life.

    • By xanderlewis 2024-01-2410:071 reply

      There are entire subreddits of people who believe that ‘AI’ is by definition infallible. I feel myself getting sucked in and going slightly crazy just spending a few minutes reading it.

      Those places seem to mostly be populated by disenfranchised people who are desperate for some ‘crazy alien tech’ to come along and overturn whatever systems they feel led them to their current (miserable) lives.

      “Anyone who doesn’t think that in two years’ time AGI will have ushered in a new age where we all live on UBI and are free to explore our passions isn’t paying attention/has no idea what’s about to happen”, etc. etc.

      Needless to say, none of this stuff has anything remotely to do with, you know… empirical evidence or theory. But reading endless reams of it for hours a day can certainly make you think it does.

      • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:38

        > “Anyone who doesn’t think that in two years’ time AGI will have ushered in a new age where we all live on UBI and are free to explore our passions isn’t paying attention/has no idea what’s about to happen”, etc. etc.

        I'd be surprised if it takes less than 6 to fully generalise over all domains (what I expect to be hard is "learning from as few examples as a human"), and I'm not convinced there's the political will to roll out UBI fast enough, not even if AI that is sufficiently powerful as to require UBI to avoid economic collapse and popular revolution takes 20 years.

        But AI may well break a lot of things in 2 years even without being either of those. Radical economic disruption doesn't need to replace all humans, even 5% would be huge, and it doesn't need to be as evidence-efficient as a human if there's lots of humans doing the same thing that the evidence-inefficient AI can learn from.

        On the other hand I have just described the trucking industry, and yet even despite the ability to collect all that training data from all those drivers, Tesla has still not fully solved self-driving vehicle AI.

        And also, I do mean "replacing humans" rather than just doing specific tasks that are currently done by humans: if those same humans can "just learn a different job", then so long as they can retrain faster than AI can learn the same jobs by watching humans collectively, this isn't so bad.

        > empirical evidence or theory

        Theory, I'd agree. But then, we don't really have any theory suitable to this task.

        Empirical evidence? That's a weird take, to me. What it can already do, even despite the mistakes of the current generation, has me wondering how long I'm going to be economically relevant for — and hoping this is a repeat of Clever Hans.

    • By unsupp0rted 2024-01-2410:021 reply

      The utopian future is governments run by AI.

      The Culture series explores this to some degree.

      • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:431 reply

        Fiction isn't a good reference point for reality. The dystopian future is also governments run by AI. Terminator so much so it's a cliché, but also I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. Also, never read this, but people sometimes point it out as an example of "Can we, like, not do that?": https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/FriendshipIsOp...

        • By unsupp0rted 2024-01-2415:261 reply

          Science fiction is a great reference point for reality.

          The people creating our reality today all read the same books I did as kids.

          Humans make lousy governors and suck at minimizing mass suffering.

          Barring I have no mouth and I must scream scenarios or Butlerian Jihad scenarios, AI can make a better world for us (or for whatever replaces us).

          The alternative is for our monkey brains to keep ramming each other with cars, slamming projectiles into ships to draw political attention, getting angry at people with the wrong skin color, etc

          I don’t want another 10,000 years of that.

          • By ben_w 2024-01-2416:00

            > Barring I have no mouth and I must scream scenarios or Butlerian Jihad scenarios, AI can make a better world for us (or for whatever replaces us).

            That's a fully generalisable statement: Barring ${environmental degradation and worker rights issues}, ${laissez faire economics} can make a better world. Barring ${racism}, ${colonialism} can make a better world. Barring ${dictatorships}, ${communism} can make a better world. Barring ${a Kessler cascade}, ${a Dyson swarm} can make a better world.

            > The alternative is for our monkey brains to keep ramming each other with cars, slamming projectiles into ships to draw political attention, getting angry at people with the wrong skin color, etc

            Our limited monkey brains are, unfortunately, also the reference example for all the AI we want to make. Human-like alignment with human-like interests and human-like values. The default is this plus bugs from the software not doing what we thought we wanted it to do, which means all those things but done at machine speed rather than biological speed plus a bunch of other things that just make no sense when they happen. The bugs in particular can be, and in some cases have already been, weird beyond human comprehension.

            I hope the safety/alignment people don't get caught up in either a scandal or a philosophical cul-de-sac.

    • By InsomniacL 2024-01-2410:161 reply

      I imagine after the first car was invented if somebody described our current situation with cars most people would be as sceptical as you are about this.

      If the purpose of Government is to govern as per the will of the people, AI's ability will likely surpass Humans in this task certainly in my lifetime.

      Talking about current gen AI is like talking about the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, We haven't reached the Ford Model T and we can't even imagine a Tesla Model X.

      • By ben_w 2024-01-2411:531 reply

        Given how bad the Benz Patent-Motorwagen was, I think the DIY/"open source" LLMs would count as equivalents of that, and that OpenAI, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney (especially given their popularity and economic disruptiveness to buggy whip manufacturers/artists) are equivalents of the Model-T. Cars have become more efficient, comfortable and safe since then, but the utility is similar.

        But I also think cars are a terrible analogy. Internal combustion engines collectively are probably more apt, and for that case: OpenAI's various models may well be the 1776 Watt steam engine — a basic useful tool that displaces manual labor, which has a direct influence in its own right, but which would also see categorical replacement several times over.

        • By InsomniacL 2024-01-259:55

          > Given how bad the Benz Patent-Motorwagen was, I think the DIY/"open source" LLMs would count as equivalents of that, and that OpenAI, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney (especially given their popularity and economic disruptiveness to buggy whip manufacturers/artists) are equivalents of the Model-T

          It's difficult to put things on a scale when you don't know what the end outcome will be. There was over 20 years between the Benz Patent-Motorwagen and the Ford Model T.

          I think the AI equivalent of the Model T won't be available for 5 - 10 years but it will follow some of the notes of the Model T (Mass Produced, lower cost of ownership, Changes most other industries, mass customisation, etc)

  • By _fizz_buzz_ 2024-01-2410:053 reply

    I think people under and overestimate AI at the same time. E.g. I asked ChatGPT4 to draw me a schematic of a simple buck converter (i.e. 4 components + load). In the written response it got the basics right. Drawing that schematic is completely garbled non-sense.

    I was expecting something like this maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_converter#/media/File:Buc...

    I got this: https://imgur.com/a/tEqprGq

    • By Mordisquitos 2024-01-2410:271 reply

      > I got this: https://imgur.com/a/tEqprGq

      Are you sure you asked ChatGPT4 to draw the schematic for a simple buck converter? I'm asking because that looks like a near perfect pre-Schneider coencarbulator-control oblidisk transistor, ingeniously aligned for use with theta arrays!

      I'm quite out of date with the latest VX work, but it looks impressive enough that I think you should ask the VX community [0] in case any of them may use this design to get improved delta readings.

      [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/

      • By _fizz_buzz_ 2024-01-2410:44

        But that is my point, ChatGPT connected the rockwell retro encabulator[0] in reverse, which will of course make the resonance tank split capacitor bridge oscillate out of sync with the active input bias triodes. This will of course immediately fry the dual-bifet transistor driver stage. Not sure why they call this AI.

        [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

    • By hackerlight 2024-01-2410:081 reply

      Is GPT-4 just passing a prompt to DALL-E to create an image? The garbled diagram makes sense since DALL-E isn't supposed to be that intelligent or an AGI.

      • By _fizz_buzz_ 2024-01-2410:151 reply

        Yes it did. And this was the description ChatGPT put underneath it:

        "Here's the illustration of a basic buck converter schematic. This diagram includes the input voltage source (Vin), the switch (transistor), diode, inductor (L), capacitor (C), output voltage (Vout), and the load (represented as a resistor). The connections between these components and the flow of current are also shown. This should help you understand the basic operation of a buck converter."

        Which is a pretty good description of the components. However, it then gaslights me into believing this is somehow depicted in the picture Dall-E produced.

        • By hackerlight 2024-01-2410:20

          So even if GPT-4 "understands" what needs to be drawn (in the sense that the higher-level concepts and relations between them are embedded in its weights), it's difficult to get DALL-E to draw it correctly because DALL-E doesn't have that same "understanding". OpenAI will need to combine these models somehow, or train DALL-E so that it has the same conceptual understanding.

    • By bobim 2024-01-2410:061 reply

      AI version is so much better!

HackerNews