NomNomNew York considers bill that would ban chatbots from giving legal, medical advice
TropicalDingdongI mean.
Is the wikipedia responsible for you reading an article about a law and then taking that as legal advice?
I could see the argument for things that aren’t particularly important, but to continue with the legal example, it seems akin to asking a practicing lawyer a question and asking someone that watched Boston Legal when it aired and can quote James Spader.
Unfortunately, with the potential for a hallucinatory response, anything beyond quite simplistic queries shouldn’t be relied on with more weight than a crutch of toothpicks.
I don’t think you are wrong, but again, thats not the case.
You’re making an argument about speech here.
Lets say you make a fan website based entirely on fine tuned LLM which acts and responds as James Spader from Boston legal. Are you liable if a user of that website construes that speech as legal advice?
If you are willing to give up access to speech so easily, I have almost no hope for Americans in the near future.
What laws like this do is create an incredibly high pass filter to in positions of established power. Its literally suicidal in regards to freedom of speech on the internet.
The right answer is that if you are dumb enough to have gotten your legal advice from an AI hallucination of James Spader, you get to absorb those consequences. The wrong answer is to tell people they aren’t allowed to build fan websites of James Spader giving questionable legal advice.
Presumably such a site would be visually obvious as parody. Having it give jokey answers in as a caricature would be one thing. If you dressed it up as a professional legal advice service for opinions on criminal law from Alan Shore, that could be problematic.
At a certain point of information sharing, we should want a high bar for the ones providing the answers. When asking nuanced questions, we should want for the answer to come from knowledge, not memory. I made an example in this other comment.
I’m not sure I agree with your ‘right answer’ bit. Personally, I’d prefer dumb people to be protected in a similar way that I want the elderly protected from losing their savings from an email scam.
I promise you, the result of this will be unlimited free speech for corporations and their LLMs, with limited and regulated free speech for you. Save or favorite the comment.
It’s the same “protect the children” anti free speech advocacy in a different wrapper, but more appealing to this audience because “llm bad”.
They’re using your emotional response to not liking LLMs as a tool to trick you into giving away your rights.
Wikipedia doesn’t give “legal advice”, it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.
That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
Wikipedia doesn’t give “legal advice”, it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.
That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
It seems like your argument is that because Wikipedia “gets it right” and has cited sources, it isn’t liable? Which I promise, is not how liability works.
What if it was Wikipedia versus “Some random sovcit facebook post” then? Is the Sovcit post liable because its sources are bullshit? Since there sources are random bullshit and or unknown, do they absorb liability? Again, its the same case, that is not how liability works.
People are going to have to acknowledge you can’t have it both ways.
Also…
with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
C’mon. Plenty of LLM’s can also hallucinate sources which are easily verified. And like with Wikipedia, one could go check them.
Wikipedia isn’t giving you advice, it’s giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Also, people get in trouble for giving legal advice, artificial unintelligence('s company) should as well.
Wikipedia isn’t giving you advice, it’s giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Okay lets try this then:
Chat bots aren’t giving you advice, it’s giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Show me the difference.
Also, people get in trouble for giving legal advice,
No, they don’t, unless they are genuinely misrepresenting their positions. Sovcit influencers are well within their rights to make up all kinds of gobbly-gookey-garbage pseudo-legal advice.
People who get in trouble are those that follow the gobbly-gookey-garbage pseudo-legal advice.
MinnesotaGoddamthe difference between giving information and giving advice is context. if i know your situation, i am giving advice. if i am just talking about the law in general, i am giving information.
Let’s swap out a chatbot with a sloptuber on YouTube making up stuff about sovereign citizen nonsense. How about then.
again it’s context. are they talking about someone’s specific sitiation or are they talking generalities. does the advice they are giving have context. some rando on youtube, if they’re making up stuff in response to people’s specific questions about their problems and “not” telling them what to do, that can fall afoul of illegal practice of law. if they’re talking about general “well you need gold fringe on your conveyor’s license because admiral keystone q transyldracula said…” in the same way some law youtubers talk about “well here’s how due process works”, it sucks but they have free speech. just the former example is one of the limits on it. again, not a lawyer, just have been too embroiled in the legal field all my life.
You aren’t going to get to have it both ways. I promise you, what you are advocating for is such a profound disaster and this whole thing is being astroturfed by tech companies to goad you into limiting your own speech.
what you are advocating for
you are profoundly misunderstanding me
I don’t think I am. Just mark the convo and come back to it.
Is the wikipedia responsible for you reading an article about a law and then taking that as legal advice?
Is the U.S. House of Representatives responsible for you reading the text of a law itself and then taking that as legal advice?
That’s a totally irrelevant comparison. There is no equivalent publisher of the law to the US House of reps. Nothing the Wikipedia publishes has legal bearing; Everything the house of Reps publish does have legal bearing.
Your objection does nothing to address the issue you raised. Where is the line drawn between “information” and “legal advice?”
Wikipedia and the lawmakers themselves present us with static information that is not specific to us personally or to any particular situation we may find ourselves in, and which generally does not include specific recommendations. I think most people would agree that’s just information, not advice.
If an LLM can be coaxed into saying things like “you should,” advocating specific courses of action for your circumstances, is that legal advice? I think many of us would agree that would be unlicesenced legal advice.