Artificial Intelligence - Ethics | Law | Philsophy

A written out transcript on Scott Aaronson's blog: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7431

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1nAJErpDYgRxL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yQEA18C-XI

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2811405

"We view this moment of hype around generative AI as dangerous. There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products and allowing more erroneous outputs. For example, earlier this year America’s National Eating Disorders Association fired helpline workers and attempted to replace them with a chatbot. The bot was then shut down after its responses actively encouraged disordered eating behaviors. "

https://www.lexisnexis.com/html/lexisnexis-generative-ai-story/

Generative AI and the Law: AI is here already – with the power to change the legal profession Author: Suzanne McGee Word count: 2209 words Estimated read time: 9 minutes Source code repos: None provided Supporting links:

• Generative AI & The Legal Profession Survey, LexisNexis 2023: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/about-us/media/press-release.page?id=1667497591151179 ↗
• Mike Walsh, CEO, LexisNexis Legal & Professional: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/about-us/our-people/leadership/mike-walsh.page ↗
• Greg Lambert, Chief Knowledge Services Officer, Jackson Walker LLP: https://www.jw.com/people/greg-lambert ↗
• Danielle Benecke, Founder & Global Head, Baker McKenzie Machine Learning: https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/people/b/benecke-danielle ↗
• Ashley Armstrong, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Connecticut: https://www.law.uconn.edu/faculty/full-time-faculty/ashley-b-armstrong ↗
• Jamie Buckley, Chief Product Officer, LexisNexis Legal & Professional: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/about-us/our-people/leadership/jamie-buckley.page ↗
• Joel F. Murray, Attorney, McKean Smith LLC: https://www.mckeansmithlaw.com/joel-f-murray.html ↗

Summary:

The article discusses the potential impact of generative AI like ChatGPT on the legal profession. It notes that while AI tools have been used in law for over a decade, recent advances like ChatGPT have renewed interest in how AI can transform legal work. Potential applications include drafting documents, analyzing large datasets, and leveling the playing field for smaller firms. However, risks include AI generating inaccurate or fictional information. Custom models trained on relevant legal data, like LexisNexis' 144 billion document repository, can mitigate this. Lawyers believe AI will increase efficiency and change practice, but not wholly replace human skills like judgment and creativity. Concerns around copyright, IP, and confidentiality exist regarding training data. Experts say AI will augment lawyers' work rather than replace them, allowing focus on high-value tasks. AI-proficient lawyers are expected to replace those who don't adopt new tech. Overall, AI has immense potential to transform legal services.

Evaluation:

This article provides a balanced overview of the potential impact of large language models like ChatGPT on the legal profession. It highlights several promising applications in areas like drafting, research, and analysis where these models can increase efficiency and capabilities. The article also importantly covers risks around inaccurate output, copyright issues, and confidentiality that need to be addressed. It notes experts believe AI will augment rather than replace lawyers, allowing them to focus on high-judgment tasks. The sources cited from legal industry executives, law firm partners, and academics lend credibility. Overall this is a strong analysis of how large language models could transform legal services, if applied judiciously with proper training data. It provides a thoughtful assessment of the technology's applicability in this field. The article gives a realistic perspective on the technology's current abilities and limitations. It would be a helpful read for those exploring use cases for large language models in the legal industry.

I have no real evidence, or even an idea about who would fund that, but I've seen a couple BBC articles now where just Meta is pitted against everyone else as if it's an equal match, which is a pretty familiar phenomenon from climate and public health issues.

I have to say, the way they describe the AI-Fizzle scenario is a weird one to me. Do they realise how many people are employed doing something existing chatbots could (and probably will) replace? The real fizzle scenario would be in between that and Futurama (since ChatGPT can't advance math as of yet, as described).

They did say they were ignoring probability, I guess.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1330998

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1330512

Below are direct quotes from the filings.

OpenAI

As noted in Paragraph 32, supra, the OpenAI Books2 dataset can be estimated to contain about 294,000 titles. The only “internet-based books corpora” that have ever offered that much material are notorious “shadow library” websites like Library Genesis (aka LibGen), Z-Library (aka B-4ok), Sci-Hub, and Bibliotik. The books aggregated by these websites have also been available in bulk via torrent systems. These flagrantly illegal shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community: for instance, an AI training dataset published in December 2020 by EleutherAI called “Books3” includes a recreation of the Bibliotik collection and contains nearly 200,000 books. On information and belief, the OpenAI Books2 dataset includes books copied from these “shadow libraries,” because those are the most sources of trainable books most similar in nature and size to OpenAI’s description of Books2.

Meta

Bibliotik is one of a number of notorious “shadow library” websites that also includes Library Genesis (aka LibGen), Z-Library (aka B-ok), and Sci-Hub. The books and other materials aggregated by these websites have also been available in bulk via torrent systems. These shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community because of the large quantity of copyrighted material they host. For that reason, these shadow libraries are also flagrantly illegal.

This article from Ars Tecnica covers a few more details. Filings are viewable at the law firm's site here.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/1338661

What do you think about this regulation? I personally feel it’s a step in the right direction towards regulating AI use, but think it could be stricter.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.intai.tech/post/44133

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/955996

Prominent international brands are unintentionally funding low-quality AI content platforms. Major banks, consumer tech companies, and a Silicon Valley platform are some of the key contributors. Their advertising efforts indirectly fund these platforms, which mainly rely on programmatic advertising revenue.

• NewsGuard identified hundreds of Fortune 500 companies unknowingly advertising on these sites.
• The financial support from these companies boosts the financial incentive of low-quality AI content creators.

Emergence of AI Content Farms: AI tools are making it easier to set up and fill websites with massive amounts of content. OpenAI's ChatGPT is a tool used to generate text on a large scale, which has contributed to the rise of these low-quality content farms.

• The scale of these operations is significant, with some websites generating hundreds of articles a day.
• The low quality and potential for misinformation does not deter these operations, and the ads from legitimate companies could lend undeserved credibility.

Google's Role: Google and its advertising arm play a crucial role in the viability of the AI spam business model. Over 90% of ads on these low-quality websites were served by Google Ads, which indicates a problem in Google's ad policy enforcement.

Source (Futurism)

PS: I run a ML-powered news aggregator that summarizes with an AI the best tech news from 50+ media (TheVerge, TechCrunch…). If you liked this analysis, you’ll love the content you’ll receive from this tool!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/949452

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sam Altman are in massive trouble. OpenAI is getting sued in the US for illegally using content from the internet to train their LLM or large language models

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/846055

Tldr:

A.I. should held to the same ethical standard we hold humans, because humans will find ways to abuse A.I. use for potentially unethical means.

Mildly infuriated at the potential of A.I. manipulation by bad actors

Tldr end

I firstly want to say that I believe A.I. Development has a place to be worked on and has the potential for human growth but I also feel mildly infuriated at the potential money sink out-of-control corporations could develop.

I've seen arguments increase about A.I. and usually the heated arguments are very specific to a particular aspect. It does make me feel frustrated and I am trying to maybe express an aspect of A.I. use too I guess.

I am not trying to start any wars on the ethics of the use A.I. however I feel that there should be some form of ethics implemented. I guess that line of thought falls in with calls for regulation.

If I glance at how social media and games go when A.I. is used as means to figure out how to make the "factory must grow" it feels like things will only get worse as there will be an ever increasing drive for getting one more currency. The more the algorithm grows and refines the more lifeless things seem to get. All this with just "basic" A.I. models.

Efficiency increases, but what is the cost?

If I compare something like Reddit to Lemmy... Lemmy feels more "alive" because social interaction without the "corporate machine interface" trying to analyze you feels organic at the moment as you know there is a human and not a bot trying to make you engage.

My anger is not at the A.I., but more the way A.I. can provide unethical actors a means to push a questionable agenda. One can already see it with things like influencers and targeted advertising with human actors, and once said unethical actors figure out how to train and develop A.I. to successfully mimic a human I fear for the control said actors will push towards an unsustainable precipice towards a desired state of consciousness.

Maybe it is fear of a dystopian future, but I fear the reality of said future is more real if A.I. doesn't have ethics either.

If said topic is not in line within forum discussion, please let me know and I will remove it and if possible please direct me to a more appropriate instance

Thank you for you time