this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
67 points (95.9% liked)

Futurology

1738 readers
220 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Law = rules. Action A is legal. Action B isn't. Doing X + Y + Z constitutes action A and so on. Legal arguments have to abide by all rules of logic. Law is one of the most logic heavy fields out there.

You're ignoring the whole Job of a judge, where they put the actions and laws into a procedural, historical and social context (something which LLMs can't emulate) to reach a verdict.

You know what's way closer to "pure logic"? Programming? You know what's the quality of the code LLMs shit out? It's quite bad.

Debating definitions here is useless however, as the end result speaks for itself.

Yes, it does speak for itself: They can't.

Yes, the exams are flawed. This podcast episode takes a look at these supposed AI lawyers.

I also don't agree with your assessment. If an LLM passes a perfect law exam (a thing that doesn't really exist) and afterwards only invents laws and precedent cases, it's still useless.