I’m not an AI researcher, but it seems like there’s a ton of waste having a universal model that knows everything when any individuals use case requires like generously 10% of what’s stored in the model. Does it even need to have memorized knowledge stored in the model or could it just look up info and docs like humans do? If all you need is the language and intelligence, I think Opus5.5 equivalent intelligence will run on an iPhone within 5 years.
Riots in India are uncontrollable. Muslims killed 59 Hindus returning from Ayodhya by burning a train full of innocent karsevaks which started the riots
Very difficult to raise electricity prices in retail areas in INdia. Political protests follow quickly. Also IIRC 30-40% waste in some places is almost always politically sanctioned theft. This is in addition to a lot more money lost as some entities that are politically controlled (e.g. Sugar factories in my state) purposely do not pay or delay. It is a miracle that the DISCOMs do not end up like neighboring Pakistan. It is like an invisible bargain with a lot of voting population and especially farmers (where no distinction is made between large land holding 1% vs others) who are routinely given free electricity. Cross subsidy is in the DNA of India.
Well I have seen many mediocre folks who confidently operate in India as they have licenses and things just work their way (CAs, lawyers, even a lot of diagnostic Doctors serving the very bottom and whose modus operandi is simply giving an antibiotic for everything). I am hoping that good AI will lift a lot of the mediocre ones at least 1 SD above.
Visit a developing or corrupt country and you will realise the LLMs of today analyse better than the judges from purely precedence and literature review POV
Might be true today, but I still feel pareto principle applies. These points also sound like gatekeeping a bit and I hope future AI versions prove that law is also essentially something that can be made as programmable as possible for most common answers if the underlying principles and constitution are organised such.
If there is no precedence for X happening when Y , Z, P, Q, R are special combinations , the judge decides and sets precedence. But if another judge interprets it differently with similar set of circumstances it is not considered incorrect I presume especially if in different jurisdiction unless overridden by a higher court. This is my layman understanding but I think this design is wrong and essentially where human subjectivity controls the system.
Subjectivity is not totally avoidable in law but the goal of the legal system should be reduce it as much as possible along with ambiguity.
Your understanding is correct, but where your understanding goes astray is thinking that that's a bug. The subjectivity is a feature. It is not possible to specify what should legally happen for all possible circumstances the entirety of humankind faces. Like, literally not possible. We humans can't even create rigorous specifications for what our programs should do that keep up with their evolving requirements, and you want to make life-ruining decisions set in stone based on a rigorous set of predetermined rules about all possible circumstances the entirety of humanity could face any time in the future in an evolving world?
Law is intentionally not code. The world is not something you can program.
Isn't achieving a rigorous, unique specificarion what civil law tries to achieve? Not that it is a success, but the idea behind it. Sorry if this is a silly question, but this is how I understand it.
No, it doesn't. It aims to provide a fairly comprehensive framework within which judgments can be made, but it is absolutely expected that there are edge cases and ambiguities which are resolved by human judgment of the circumstances.
Since this is a thread about using ChatGPT for law, I should note that this is actually one of the most important reasons you'd rather hire a lawyer than ChatGPT to represent you. A good lawyer or firm will know the local judges and how they tend to lean on ambiguities in their area of expertise, and will be able to use that information to both advise you and tailor their arguments to appeal to the judge's sensibilities. There is an element of unfairness to this, to be sure, but you'd find much more unfairness really quickly with machine-generated judgments because of how messy and non-compressable real world circumstances are.
Well AI would simulate growth and spread of people from industrialisation and who benefitted most and allocate weights to countries and people based on the most complex criteria it can develop, it will have:
1. Cumulative emissions
2. Who utilised it most with specific lifestyles
3. Who is impacted worst and whether they heeded warnings.
Just a thought experiment, no one ever said the world was fair, and all history points to it
A lot of the long tail tools are used so rarely or for some very specific functions in certain organisations that there is a good case to be made that these can definitely be targets of simpler GPT guided automation.
There are a lot of redundancies within the tools and the pricing is such that one cannot do much about it, generally some companies pay for the brand, and some tools like SAP are integral to companies of certain size. A sufficiently integrated AI tool that learns the workflows might actually be able to find optimisations here as well, but definitely auditability, testing and other concerns will remain and this is what might become the USP of SAAS providers.
A lot of outsourced IT services jobs in India and other countries are cheap hourly wages for a lot of people maintaining these, certainly a lot of these will be under threat
While I do not believe AI to be a panacea and the non deterministic nature and costs once the scale keeps growing means the integration will be gradual. I am still excited for it to define what an organisation is and what do a lot of people actually do especially in fields like accounting etc. where repetitive work is billed at quite high rates.
Law etc. is a field where the gatekeepers might hold on much longer by adding more ridiculous rules and logic. Ultimately humans have decided what is constitutional and what is legal and subjective rules are what maintain human power.
I feel the right model is smart domain experts of humans making strong and useful harnesses that help AI be effective with the workflows of the organisation, however this might be the biggest fear of middle managers who will never let it happen easily
>> however this might be the biggest fear of middle managers who will never let it happen easily
Will this be different in a company like Amazon, or the new internet companies, that we're born with a deeper understanding of disruption and has it in their DNA?
Accountants get to charge high rates largely because good advice saves their customers large amounts of tax. When we're talking tax accountants of course. There's all sorts of accountants though - audit, management, forensic etc.
reply