|
|
|
|
|
|
by lm28469
1263 days ago
|
|
|
> That's actually a great idea. The estimated cost of each query is cents, so we might very well be able to retry everyone on each update, for less than the cost of keeping them imprisoned. You're thinking like a developer and you're absolutely blind when it comes to the lives and families potentially destroyed by something like that. And that's exactly why technocrats should rarely be in charge "ah really sorry dude, we released you last year but now you're on death row, wait for the next update, if it comes before you're fried on the chair you might get a lesser sentence. The last dude forgot to uncomment a branch in a switch/case and you were flagged incorrectly. Sorry for the inconvenience xoxo" > Me personally? Afford more than a fairly small case. That's a regulation issues, not an AI issue. |
|
|
That's the exact opposite of the scenario you previously described, as you were previously saying people could get better defences not getting better prosecutions.
I'm not legally trained so this might just be Hollywood logic, but doesn't re-prosecuting someone require a court case with new evidence?
Anyway…
> That's a regulation issues, not an AI issue.
No, it's a "you're hiring at contractor rates" problem.
Just as Stable Diffusion is giving a hard time to professional artists who earn at contractor rates by producing "it might not be amazing but it's certainly not bad" art for a dozen images per cent of electricity, ChatGPT is giving "it might BS me 5-20% of the time depending on the subject, but it's still better than I know" responses on basically everything.
It can't do every job at an expert level yet, but it's better than almost everyone's baseline for the skills they are non-expert at. (No idea how long it will take to get to superhuman even just for law, and I was over-optimistic about self-driving car AI, but we shall see).