AI is pretty good at helping with very straightforward tax and legal questions. Also, can a lawyer use AI for legal advice? Lawyers are already using AI for a ton of stuff. This sounds hamfisted.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1041 points (95.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7729 readers
2004 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can we have ANY sources here at all or are we just posting AI gen shit in antiAI now?
So now you'll have to pay $200 every time you have an important question you need answered? My PCP just tells me to use over the counter products anyways. Also is this NY state or city? Why is there a picture of Mamdani?
There are no sources for any of this AI generated Facebook bullshit.
Finally.
Smart GovOS policy keeping human CDMWorlds accountable.
I’d rather have AI as the CEO of my company, than as my doctor. But this feels a bit like overreach.
Modern capitalism derives it's scarcity via artificial means such as legislation.
The only thing this does is restrict the means of information to the people of NYC. Have you used traditional web search for health/legal/etc. advice? Even pre-2015 if you didn't know what you're doing you would get the most unhinged, predatory, incorrect advice imaginable, but legislating away access wasn't going to make health information more correct, accurate, or equitable. It would've just further entrenched the predatory health/legal/etc. industry as the gatekeepers of that knowledge.
This is no different.
Let's build all the massive data centers but then we'll just make using them illegal
I understand the sentiment but I think this is too far of a pushback. Restricting access to information even though it may be inaccurate or misleading isn't the right answer. AI is a tool. I'd wager, force a prompt to specifically be visible whenever subjects break that. Essentially the cigerette equivelant "THIS PRODUCT KILLS YOU" but something like "AI RESPONSES TO MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ACCURATE. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CARE PROVIDER."
I feel like this logic should of banned search engines since they could provide links to sites with misinformation.
In what way is this restricting information? AI usually just summarizes info that was already trivially searchable
AI shouldn’t be an excuse to take a job, it can be a tool but that’s it
Add edibility of wild plants to the list please
Maybe I'm just ignorant about this, but it feels a bit "gatekeepy" to outlaw answering questions about the law itself. Like... so I can't use an LLM to help do taxes? Or if I'm served a confusing legal document, I have to pay an expensive attorney to understand the legalese? I can't even just get a rough idea from an LLM first?
EDIT: Also I've literally had a professional accountant send me a ChatGPT conversation they had because they didn't know tax law well enough. I feel like if anything that should be outlawed. Professionals should actually have to know shit and know how to research primary sources.
I would say its to protect people, if you ask a LLM for a legal answer and trust it, then you could get into legal trouble when it turns out to be wrong.
Not only are LLMs wrong like ~1/10th of the time (for the more advanced ones) but law is also an area where there is black and white rules, but also there is interpretation of some aspects.
Some things are set in stone and some are about understanding the intention of the law and being able to back that up in a court if it was challenged.
Do you want the public trusting a LLM that says "oh yes you can claim a tax deduction for an Xbox because its for stress relief related to your job" and then you get whacked with a fine for incorrectly filing your tax.
Using a LLM to help your draft an email to your uncle = low risk. Using a LLM to help you decide if you actually need a medical procedure your doctor has reccomended = high risk.
If that was the logic we were using then Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to have articles on health and law either. WebMD shouldn't have ever been legal either.
Obviously, the benefits to having that information available outweigh the hypothetical negatives. Even with them being incorrect, partial and easy to draw invalid conclusions from, having the information be freely and readily accessible is better for everyone.
law in itself is very gatekeepy - you have to learn the "correct" way to interpret the words and then get certified for it.
More like you as an average person have no idea what it's hallucinating and what is the truth and may end up in jail or the hospital like the cases that are starting to get reported on who did just that.
with a group of people that has a bias towards a certain delusion, and/or high acceptance of directly scientifically contradictory beliefs, you can get a bubble and affirm themselves out of reality in the same way. i also wouldn't suggest banning groups of people, but i believe with groups or with LLMs, a good grounding in both scientific thinking is the best way to keep 'stable' away from delusion.
a shame that grants are being filtered by a project 2025 author right now, and a bunch of important science got cut by this admin.
also see it like mobile phones, which instead of being useful mobile personal computers, we got data collection bricks that has a skeleton of a few practical tools built into the soft edges of a giant gambling and addiction pipeline.
there's a whole rant about the high-level psychological manipulation employed against average people just to make them more comfortable losing their money, which does not mean that portable personal computers are bad, but the failure of anti-trust and consumer protection has allowed all technological and social development to be hindered purely for the extractive demands of the people who actually get to decide what happens.
as long as you keep the general public too tired to think about it, you just have to convince them that some other small group is their tribal enemy and that's where your collective focus and energy should be going, rather than the more simple answer of rich assholes being opportunistic and stupid/evil.
I guess it's like banning loan sharks. Sure some people could only.get loans through them because banks were racist or whatever. But it's objectively bad for everyone using it mainly because when it's bad its really really bad.
New York State not New York City.
I don't know why Mamdani is pictured. I think it is because the proposal was introduced in the State Senate by Kisten Gonzalez who is a DSA member.
the text in this image is also just flat-out wrong,
the proposed legislation does not "ban AI from answering questions" on these subjects.
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/kristen-gonzalez/ny-state-senator-kristen-gonzalez-her-bill-address-ai says it is strictly about impersonating licensed professionals:
We have documented instances of AI chatbots providing false medical license numbers to users and documented cases of real harm from AI chatbots providing misinformation. This is what my common-sense legislation addresses—protecting users from misinformation, scams, and fraud. This legislation does not prohibit a user from asking a chatbot questions or receiving general information and advice, as long as the chatbot is not presenting that information as a licensed professional. It would also not prohibit licensed professionals from consulting AI technology in the course of their work.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I really think this is a bad idea these should really just be flagged, there's many situations where asking these questions in necessary and there's few if any other ways to get an answer
Sorta agree. Maybe force them to have a very obvious sign that says AI is routinely wrong about these topics specifically and are not a source to consider reliable, and then also offer a helpline where one can get reasonable answers even if the answer is "unfortunately you need to seek expert opinion on this"
But googling basic labor laws and simple healthcare tricks should be acceptable like stretches for wrist or knee pain, skin/hair care or what level of diarrhea is hospital worthy should be fine.
load more comments
(7 replies)
This is super dumb. People will just Google their questions instead, and get worse results.
I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit... Like, lawyers shouldn't even be a thing you need unless it's for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.
Also, as someone who studied medicine... Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don't want to imply that they don't know what they're doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT... they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it's NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.
I'd agree with you to some extent if people weren't so god damn stupid. So many lazy fucks just take the AI's output at face value, believing it to be some all knowledgeable god, rather than a compilation of all human biases expressed on the internet with a bunch of hallucinations thrown in for good measure.
load more comments
(2 replies)
When people say "AI" these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that's the opposite of what you'd want.
Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit?
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it's a patient and instead of asking "could these be related" the patient is told "these are related".
a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›