alt Hacker NewsHow it is made should be irrelevant in the process. There is no way to stop people using LLM’s or other tools to create products like this report.
It should be globally a standard check to verify incoming documents and to determine their validity.
The interesting part on this case is that we see the real human aspect of it. Just asking for a report only finding the positive facts instead of doing real research.
That is an ethics question. When behaving like this (and it happened before LLM’s) it should be seen as an ethics violation. If not done there is no value in those legal procedures anymore.
The facts people have to accept is that the only place to check this is the deliverable. They are lucky now to have found the source, the prompts and the background but so many reports are entered without being so obvious.
It’s a terribly huge and complicated task.
Replies
You're at work. You need to produce an artefact – a project proposal, say. 100-odd lines of Gantt, costs, that your BD team will send to the client.
You get Copilot to do this for you.
Later at the review meeting, errors are found. A bunch of stuff was missed, the costs were off.
Whose fault is it? Who looks stupid? If it's bad enough, who gets fired?
> How it is made should be irrelevant in the process.
Is that true? Almost all answers have value based on how they were reached, especially when (like this case) there's no trivial and objective verification step.
For example, suppose you live next to a volcano, and I sell you some software that predicts when it will erupt. One day you dig into it and realize I just hard-coded "not today" [0] which is 99.999% accurate.
I think you would be quite angry, and justifiably so... But why would that be if "not today" was correct, and "how it's made is irrelevant to the process?"
Tying it back to the court case, we expect professional witnesses to look at the details and then reach a conclusion, and to reach out based their own professional expert knowledge of cause and effect... Not to pick a conclusion and try to make the details fit, nor to offload executive function to an LLM. Even if they render the same boolean verdict, we care about what process was taken.
The biggest problem is not really that chatgpt was used but more than the conclusion is decided first and chatgpt is used to find the arguments to support it.
Normal, an expert should look at the facts and elements provided without a predecided result and forge his conviction based on the elements.
Obviously experts might be biased, especially when paid by the company, but it should still be in the understanding and evaluation of documents. Otherwise they are not an expert. They are not "lawyers" with the task to find incriminating or exonerating arguments.
Their testimony should start with something like "in my honest opinion". That is obviously not compatible with taking chatgpt to generate your testimony by asking to prepare arguments that support your customer.
> How it is made should be irrelevant in the process.
No? If you are employed (or requested in this case I guess) to offer your expert opinion, the expert they want to hear from is you, not someone else you farm your work out to - whether that’s an LLM or another person