• Æther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because there’s no actual guarantee that it was reviewed by a legal team, as evidenced by the countless examples of politician speeches that left obvious “would you like me to reword as if X” artifacts, and references to completely hallucinated cases in many other court cases recently.

    • LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Then the issue should be with laziness and poor quality control by the lawmaker. The output of AI is known to have issues. If an issue is found then the repercussions of the output falls squarely on the lawmaker and should be kept in mind during elections or recalls if applicable.

        • LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah. Of course it’s going to be a problem. Just like any tool that allows people to easily offload work. These people are seeking to bring balance back to their life in a world that’s driven their free time to near zero. They need to be taught how to properly apply the tool, cause sorry to tell ya, the genie is out of the bottle. LLMs are here to stay. So we need to learn to use them appropriately rather than trying to outlaw their use in some way.

          Until we get a framework for how to use them appropriately as a society we just need to settle on holding people accountable for blindly trusting their output. At the end of the day, you should be responsible for the work you do. And that includes harmful output and/or outcomes of the AI company itself. If the AI is actively spreading misinformation or harmful content the company and its management should be held liable for damages.