Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
"Although there might be public skepticism of the emerging technology in the legal profession at this time, “we will be worried in the future about the competence of lawyers who don’t use these tools,” Perlman predicted."
It's pretty clear from this shitshow they should be worried about lawyers who are using these tools.
OR MORE specifically the non-lawyers writing bar exam questions with AI.
Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, told the newspaper, “It’s a staggering admission.”
“The State Bar has admitted they employed a company to have a non-lawyer use AI to draft questions that were given on the actual bar exam,” she said. “They then paid that same company to assess and ultimately approve of the questions on the exam, including the questions the company authored.”
Non lawyers writing questions for a competency exam for lawyers with zero oversight by anyone in the profession?
As a lawyer—this is bullshit.
Considering the now multiple cases of LLMs citing non-existent case law, I thought we already were. Seems like using the "there are only two R's in strawberry" machine to do your job would potentially be grounds for losing your professional license.
AI will never, ever make anyone better at their job. It might in some cases help them to be faster.
If competency is the concern, AI has no role here.
And there's the crux of the issue. Capitalism doesn't give a fuck if LLMs are right. It only cares if it raises its stock option payouts.
That's extremely worrisome for me, as well. It's bad enough AI was used already to argue cases badly, are lawyers now feeling entitled to their exorbitant fees without even the abuse of paralegals and researchers?
Man, lawyers just DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF LLMs.
That's part of the problem here. Lawyers didn't make up the questions on the exam.
"Having the questions drafted by non-lawyers using artificial intelligence is just unbelievable.”
I'm perfectly fine with non-lawyers, and/or LLMs writing the questions. What was stupid was that it wasn't independently validated and proofread by a third party.
“The State Bar has admitted they employed a company to have a non-lawyer use AI to draft questions that were given on the actual bar exam,” she said. “They then paid that same company to assess and ultimately approve of the questions on the exam, including the questions the company authored.”
It's a bar exam. One of the most important tests these people will take in their entire career, and they half assed the implementation.
Is the most important test the test takers will take. For the test givers, it was Tuesday.
It seems like a failure of the LLM creators for marketing it the way they do
People pay to take this exam. Someone decided to pocket some of that money for their org and have an AI org do some of it instead of qualified professionals. They didn't bother to check the output. It came out poorly and now they have to eat the cost of going back and fixing it. The students and proctors are not compensated for the added time and stress, but paid the same for an overall worse experience. It's a microcosm of everything wrong with the way AI is being used.
They thought they didnt need lawers or programmers!
The CA Bar used a different company to administer the test this year. It was a you total mess.
A friend has proctored the exam multiple times and said they felt terrible for all the test takers.
The Bar has already said they will go back to the old test process.
I'm in law school right now. AI is pretty helpful for researching briefs. You can ask it super specific legal questions and get answers with citations. But what you can't do is just copy and paste shit and not check the citations to make sure they're real.
The idea that they'd use AI to write the test questions and not independent verify them is ridiculous.