this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
722 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

63747 readers
3253 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

But the explanation and Ramirez’s promise to educate himself on the use of AI wasn’t enough, and the judge chided him for not doing his research before filing. “It is abundantly clear that Mr. Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI-generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr. Ramirez does not relieve him of his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry,” Judge Dinsmore continued, before recommending that Ramirez be sanctioned for $15,000.

Falling victim to this a year or more after the first guy made headlines for the same is just stupidity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 141 points 18 hours ago (33 children)

“Mr. Ramirez explained that he had used AI before to assist with legal matters, such as drafting agreements, and did not know that AI was capable of generating fictitious cases and citations,” Judge Dinsmore wrote in court documents filed last week.

Jesus Christ, y'all. It's like Boomers trying to figure out the internet all over again. Just because AI (probably) can't lie doesn't mean it can't be earnestly wrong. It's not some magical fact machine; it's fancy predictive text.

It will be a truly scary time if people like Ramirez become judges one day and have forgotten how or why it's important to check people's sources yourself, robot or not.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 39 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

AI, specifically Laege language Models, do not “lie” or tell “the truth”. They are statistical models and work out, based on the prompt you feed them, what a reasonable sounding response would be.

This is why they’re uncreative and they “hallucinate”. It’s not thinking about your question and answering it, it’s calculating what words will placate you, using a calculation that runs on a computer the size of AWS.

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's like when you're having a conversation on autopilot.

"Mum, can I play with my frisbee?" Sure, honey. "Mum, can I have an ice cream from the fridge?" Sure can. "Mum, can I invade Poland?" Absolutely, whatever you want.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

So chat gpt started ww2

[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

Don't need something the size of AWS these days. I ran one on my PC last week. But yeah, you're right otherwise.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 49 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

No probably about it, it definitely can't lie. Lying requires knowledge and intent, and GPTs are just text generators that have neither.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago

I'm G P T and I cannot lie.
You other brothers use 'AI'
But when you file a case
To the judge's face
And say, "made mistakes? Not I!"
He'll be mad!

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So it can not tell the truth either

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (4 children)

not really no. They are statistical models that use heuristics to output what is most likely to follow the input you give it

They are in essence mimicking their training data

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

A bit out of context my you recall me of some thinking I heard recently about lying vs. bullshitting.

Lying, as you said, requires quite a lot of energy : you need an idea of what the truth is and you engage yourself in a long-term struggle to maintain your lie and keep it coherent as the world goes on.

Bullshit on the other hand is much more accessible : you just have to say things and never look back on them. It's very easy to pile a ton of them and it's much harder to attack you about any of them because they're much less consequent.

So in that view, a bullshitter doesn't give any shit about the truth, while a liar is a bit more "noble". 0

[–] ggppjj@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago

I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it's very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 7 points 15 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

a lie is a statement that the speaker knows to be wrong. wouldnt claiming that AIs can lie imply cognition on their part?

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I've had this lengthy discussion before. Some people define a lie as an untrue statement, while others additionally require intent to deceive.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I would fall into the latter category. Lots of people are earnestly wrong without being liars.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Me, too. But it also means when some people say "that's a lie" they're not accusing you of anything, just remarking you're wrong. And that can lead to misunderstandings.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 9 hours ago

Yep. Those people are obviously "liars," since they are using an uncommon colloquial definition. 😉

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The latter is the actual definition. Some people not knowing what words mean isnt an argument

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Sure it is. You can define language all you want, the goal is to communicate with each other. The definition follows usage, not the other way around. Just look up the current definition for literally...

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You can specifically tell an ai to lie and deceive though, and it will…

This was just in the news today.. although the headline says that the ai become psychopathic, they just told the ai to be immoral or something

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 7 hours ago

Every time an AI ever does anything newsworthy just because it's obeying it's prompt.

It's like the people that claim the AI can replicate itself, yeah if you tell it to. If you don't give an AI any instructions it'll sit there and do nothing.

[–] Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 4 points 13 hours ago

AI is just stringing words together that are statistically likely to appear near each other. It's a giant complex statistical model but it has no awareness of truth or lying

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

AIs can generate false statements. It doesn't require a set of beliefs, it merely requires a set of input.

[–] ggppjj@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

A false statement would be me saying that the color of a light that I cannot see and have never seen that is currently red is actually green without knowing. I am just as easily probably right as I am probably wrong, statistics are involved.

A lie would be me knowing that the color of a light that I am currently looking at is currently red and saying that it is actually green. No statistics, I've done this intentionally and the only outcome of my decision to act was that I spoke a falsehood.

AIs can generate false statements, yes, but they are not capable of lying. Lying requires cognition, which LLMs are, by their own admission and by the admission of the companies developing them, at the very least not currently capable of, and personally I believe that it's likely that LLMs never will be.

[–] balder1991@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

Me: I want you to lie to me about something.

ChatGPT: Alright—did you know that Amazon originally started as a submarine sandwich delivery service before pivoting to books? Jeff Bezos realized that selling hoagies online wasn’t scalable, so he switched to literature instead.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Still not a lie still text that is statistically likely to fellow prior text produced by a model with no thought process that knows nothing

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 10 hours ago

Lie falsehood, untrue statement, while intent is important in a human not so much in a computer which, if we are saying can not lie also can not tell the truth

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

AHS - Amazon Hoagies Services

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)