• diz@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    When confronted with a problem like “your search engine imagined a case and cited it”, the next step is to wonder what else it might be making up, not to just quickly slap a bit of tape over the obvious immediate problem and declare everything to be great.

    Exactly. Even if you ensure the cited cases or articles are real it will misrepresent what said articles say.

    Fundamentally it is just blah blah blah ing until the point comes when a citation would be likely to appear, then it blah blah blahs the citation based on the preceding text that it just made up. It plain should not be producing real citations. That it can produce real citations is deeply at odds with it being able to pretend at reasoning, for example.

    Ensuring the citation is real, RAG-ing the articles in there, having AI rewrite drafts, none of these hacks do anything to address any of the underlying problems.

    • kbotc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Yea, and if you’re going to let the AI write the structure and have a lawyer go and rewrite the whole thing after validating it, why not remove the step and just have said lawyer actually write the brief and put their accreditation on the line?