"Fair chance"
![Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: 🤣](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png)
![Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: 🤣](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png)
![Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: 🤣](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png)
It's simple. Anything that will impact their livelihood and diminish their need. I mean, it's lawyers that created all the "legal" morass they in turn have to deal with. They are like self-licking ice cream cones...
Sure. You said something pretty bold there--that it wasn't the fault of the software, but the many people involved in the legal system--and I wanted to make sure I was following along. I asked myself "is this a smart guy sharing an opinion I may need some clarification on, or is this one of those guys who doesn't really know anything, but knows he doesn't like lawyers, so he's just talkin some smack because he has nothing valuable to add?"
The software doesn't do what its proponents say it do. You can tell when someone doesn't know something about AI because they suggest that in the future, it
will be useful. Now me? I run a tech company, and when I'm not running a tech company, other, bigger tech companies hire me to come in and fix their problems.
Which means that I have AI running on machines, here, in my home--not chatgpt, but self-hosted, DIY stuff--right now. I do this for research for my reports. And, like with software, NFTs, and VR before, I've been pretty on the money about this whole tech thing. I have watched "Just trust me. One day, it
will be useful for something" or hypotheticals that are so far different from what the technology can actually do (as an example: the blockchain is just a distributed ledger! It can't guarantee software interoperability! We can do this better with an API that has no blockchain in it, and we can do it more efficiently and much, much more quickly!).
The software
cannot do anything you think AI should be able to do.
AI is a machine that averages out responses to things that exist. It cannot be
improved to a place where it can do more things. Because of the way it's built, because of the way it's engineered, AI cannot ever be fit for the purpose of legal research. I was actually chatting with some very patient lawyers about this the other day who were explaining to another very stupid tech bro why his use case for AI for legal stuff would never work.
Since AI has no analytical capabilities (if you type "please analyze this" it may reply "I have analyzed this and this is my conclusion," but it doesn't know what analyze is, it's just using the word 'analyze' because you did), it cannot determine what matters, what's relevant, or even
find accurate information. It will
generate--and only generate, never research or analyze--answers based on what was loaded into its training corpus, most of which is stolen content.
Microsoft's trying to argue that everything should be public domain so they can run AI right now, like a thief walking into your home, stealing all that you own, selling it to make a profit, and then saying "you can't punish me for the crime of theft! I am running a business! My business will fail if I am punished for theft!" But that hasn't stopped the RIAA, movie studios, and companies like Reuters for going for the throat.
This iteration of AI isn't capable of any of the things you think of when you think science fiction AI.
The machine isn't lying or hallucinating--that's what AI proponents use to describe this because they want you to think that what they call "AI" is like the AI you see in movies, and it's actually more like a magic 8-ball that will give you answers that mirror the text in your queries--it's just generating text that's approximately similar to what you asked it to generate. That's it. That's all. There is no veracity there.
When asked if Google could ever make reliable AI, the google exec (I think the president of google?) said "no, the unreliability is baked in."
And all you've offered is that you don't like lawyers. I gave you a fair shot.