First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.
What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say
Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”
And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!
[…W]hen examining only those who passed the exam (i.e. licensed or license-pending attorneys), GPT-4’s performance is estimated to drop to 48th percentile overall, and 15th percentile on essays.
officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now
also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?
Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won’t be able to judge
then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort
good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests
I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket.
because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”
And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
“guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter
oh i would love to read those court documents
and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate
wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea
what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute
they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
“but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”
it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be
but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices.
It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does
so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):
Ohhh, that is sneaky!
What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say
And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!
That’s like saying a person reading a book before a quiz is doing it open book because they have the memory of reading that book.
It’s more like taking a digital copy into the test room with you and Ctrl+F’ing every question/answer.
Except it’s not, because they can’t perfectly recall everything.
It’s more like reading every book in the world, and someone asking you what comes next after “And I…”.
“will alwaaays love you…”
Easy. No other answer.
I’m not a big AI guy but it’s really not quite like that, models do NOT contain all the data they were trained on.
Edit: I have no idea what’s going on down below this comment
we can tell
The guy above you is right though. So what are you on about?
officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now
also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?
But LLM’s don’t work like Typewriters, they work like Microwaves!
“Nooo you don’t get it, LLMs are supposed to be shit”
Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.
In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.
at which point it’s just easier to do the right thing straight away, that is pay a lawyer to do their job https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769
You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?
Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.
This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.
that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output
so your process of getting legal advice is:
how does that simplify anything
Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!
[ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)
good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests
because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”
“guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”
oh i would love to read those court documents
wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea
what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute
“but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”
Spoken like someone who hasn’t gotten beyond ChatGPT on default settings.
what the fuck kind of reply is this
A reply to a rant based on false premises.
congratulations on your impending graduation (to expat poster)
it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be
but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs
It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.
I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.
You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does
This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.
But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?
so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth
how fucking embarrassing for you
ah, a civility connoisseur.
LLMs know nothing. literally. they cannot.
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
don’t compare your child to a chatbot wtf
The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.
no, it doesn’t, and it’s not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).
the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.
Yeah but neither did Socrates
but he at least was smug about it