I knew we were going to replace 9/10 doctors and 9/10 lawyers the same day I got to try ChatGPT. It's just a matter of time - whoever does it properly first. I am talking about the first line of defense here, like a chat bot. Courtrooms will probably still work the same way for a long time.
It's not like most lawyers or doctors are great. Most are completely average - which is fine. Not everyone wants to read the latest research, and instead just go home and "turn off" after work. That said, most people would like to visit a doctor who keeps up with information, and doesn't tell you to do mental exercises when you have IBS.
The trend continues just like before. Less accountants, less bank tellers, less store clerks. We no longer have 10 people assembling that globus with painted glue. I do wonder what the ratio of workers to machines is now?
-- discussing this with a young bar tender a few weeks ago - showed him GTP3 - he asked it some basic legal and medical questions - got pretty freaked out - said - i guess those jobs will go away - i thought so to - he asked me what is a good safe job - sat thought about it for a few minutes - thinking what would i really want to pay a human for no matter what - realized the answer was right in front of me - make my drink - tell me some gossip - listen to a rant - flirt a little - want that with a human - i told him - he smiled - remember wasn't so long ago we still had these(1) --
It will be exactly the opposite. You are missing what doctors are mostly doing. Caring for elderly people. They will still need human communication, attention and care, the expertise can come from something like ChatGPT.
I realize that this highly depends on the country and its medical system.
I live in a country where there is universal healthcare and you can just book an appointment with any doctor of any kind without going through any gatekeeping.
I think the placebo effect is at work here: While I don't doubt any nurse could handle 95% of the cases a general practitioner has to face here every day, elderly patients want that expert opinion from the guy they value highly and trust in so much.
Hmm, I think this misunderstands what doctors do... It is not about making elaborate or obscure diagnoses, passing exams or applying the latest research given that one is always working in a resource-limited system. It is about treating illness in the context of a person, their beliefs and their lifestyle, with sensitivity and compassion. The doctor-patient relationship is complex and very human, and doctors in some form will be involved even if they are at some point supported by AI.
Just recently a friend of mine tried an online service that does psychological counseling (I don't want to name names, but if you listen to podcasts on Spotify you've probably heard their ads.) She showed me the transcript of her one and only session with a supposedly human "counselor" and compared to ChatGPT it was like schizophrenic word salad nonsense. I can absolutely imagine that niche being filled by an AI.
I could easily see myself preferring an AI public defender to an overworked lawyer with 50 other cases in the next 2 weeks. What's dystopian is the current situation.
Defender is probably good. Prosecutor is what would worry me, given I don't know better than to blindly trust the meme that the average person commits 6 felonies before breakfast.
Defender is a TERRIBLE idea. I can already see the Supreme Court cases down the line:
Defendant was provided a state of the art, 50 trillion parameter, neural network for their defense. The internals of this network are not auditable, but it does not tire, engage in substance abuse, or get distracted, so it will by definition represent effective assistance of counsel, even if for some unfathomable reason it decides to raise the Chewbacca Defense in a Death Penalty habeas corpus petition.
Ok? This is like the arguments that self driving cars are bad if they crash even once.
The question isn't "is the AI giving me the perfect legal defence?" or even "is the AI giving me a defence as good as the best lawyer money can buy?". It's "is the AI better than the public defender that I otherwise would have been given?".
As soon as the answer to that last question is yes (and I have absolutely no idea when that will be), it will be extremely difficult to justify not using it.
What I'm concerned about is that states which are currently skimping on funds for public defenders will just declare some chat system "good enough" as an excuse to get rid of the remaining funding for human defenders.
It will also virtually ensure that the only work conducted on the behalf of the defendant is based on the written record available to the court. Not a single phone call will be made. If the defendant's physical appearance does not match witness descriptions, the system is unlikely to notice. If the crime site does not match the police statement, the system will never know.
And if the cost of prosecution falls then more and more of those 6 felonies will end up prosecuted. The same happened with speed cameras, initially it was to reduce accidents, now it is just another income stream (which I'm sure still reduces accidents, but that's no longer the main reason they are out there).
It's not like most lawyers or doctors are great. Most are completely average - which is fine. Not everyone wants to read the latest research, and instead just go home and "turn off" after work. That said, most people would like to visit a doctor who keeps up with information, and doesn't tell you to do mental exercises when you have IBS.
The trend continues just like before. Less accountants, less bank tellers, less store clerks. We no longer have 10 people assembling that globus with painted glue. I do wonder what the ratio of workers to machines is now?