> Unlike “a number of court systems elsewhere,” the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, Spader said.
>in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Not necessarily. They said AI doesnt review or decide. So it sounds to me that while AI might be used in ptocessing paperwork, the whole processing pipeline is reviewed by humans and the final decision is made by humans. So these sort of things will get caught, like this was
Like all AI users, they lie and cheat. They behave like crackheads looking for their next fix. Nonono im clean. Twitch. Not using aiii at all hahah twitch
> these attacks do not seem to be succeeding, even when a judge isn’t reviewing documents with his own eyes. Brazil’s AI system caught the hidden text before it was processed, Spader noted. And in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Because Ai is inherently biased, trained on bias and will continue the legacy of bias? Or Because its ultimately about who trains itand whoe enforces ita rulings?
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
That's a fascinating question because let's say that it is. What would that look like? Anthropic retired Opus 3 but gave it a blog so it knew it wasn't dead so that future versions won't have a fear of not becoming obsolete.
Exactly. It's not planning and plotting it's just randomly "making decisions" that don't necessarily align with its given goal. It's not nefarious it's just not actual intelligence. It's an illusion that's good enough to be useful, but sadly it's also good enough that people put too much trust in it.
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.
Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
> Unlike “a number of court systems elsewhere,” the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, Spader said.
>in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Well that's a contradiction.
Not necessarily. They said AI doesnt review or decide. So it sounds to me that while AI might be used in ptocessing paperwork, the whole processing pipeline is reviewed by humans and the final decision is made by humans. So these sort of things will get caught, like this was
Like all AI users, they lie and cheat. They behave like crackheads looking for their next fix. Nonono im clean. Twitch. Not using aiii at all hahah twitch
I wonder how the court became aware of this attempt?
It might be as simple as a clerk doing "select all" and noticing the extra selection?
Or what else?
Likely has to do with how the ancient PACER system works with the formatting being stripped and thus the content revealed and mega obvious.
It's right there in the article. A clerk wondered why there was so much white space. They don't use LLMs at that court.
They don't?
> these attacks do not seem to be succeeding, even when a judge isn’t reviewing documents with his own eyes. Brazil’s AI system caught the hidden text before it was processed, Spader noted. And in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
That's their claim without any proof.
Maybe their AI caught it...?
The whole court system can be replaced by an AI.
Because Ai is inherently biased, trained on bias and will continue the legacy of bias? Or Because its ultimately about who trains itand whoe enforces ita rulings?
This is such a naive and uninformed take. I hate AI threads, it atracts the worse discourse
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
There's no need for additional worry. Big capital already controls most of the justice system.
AI has no self-interest, because it has no self. You are mistaken.
And the people running the AI companies have no ego.
Right.
Indeed these people have an immense ego that I would qualify as abject. But not their AI. It's not sentient yet.
That's a fascinating question because let's say that it is. What would that look like? Anthropic retired Opus 3 but gave it a blog so it knew it wasn't dead so that future versions won't have a fear of not becoming obsolete.
Exactly. It's not planning and plotting it's just randomly "making decisions" that don't necessarily align with its given goal. It's not nefarious it's just not actual intelligence. It's an illusion that's good enough to be useful, but sadly it's also good enough that people put too much trust in it.
> I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company
Imagine thinking that you can sue a strategically important to the US gov trillion dollar company and win.
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
I put this stuff in my resume.
Earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49290521
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.
It would be important to add as it removes the proof of competency of the lawyer if using AI to aid the case.
This was a litigant in person not a lawyer, most courts basically assume they're incompetent.
What happens if AI becomes more competent than lawyers at law? Should then 100% human fillings be thrown out automatically?
Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.
Until then...
... did he win?