Before psychosis, ChatGPT told man “he was an oracle,” new lawsuit alleges
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
View: https://youtu.be/9Nvhsl1W-_A?si=0SyaaB4rRywgC27h
Not sure what you're talking about. I found multiple news stories corrobotating the jury verdict.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Accusation? Isn't that word generally reserved to describe claims that one would feel shame, or insult about? Would you be insulted if someone believed you used an LLM?
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
But again, I'm not sure why you're blaming the jury and not the prosecutors.
From the Crutcher case, a juror 'said the jury felt that the state’s prosecution “was shoddy,” and that they could have gotten a conviction “had they done a better job.”'
And the judge from the Castile shooting attributed the acquittal to "the state's failure to prove any of the required elements of the charge."
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
https://ia600201.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.txnd.281158/gov.uscourts.txnd.281158.246.0.pdf
Took me some searching but found original verdict.
Nvm these are jury instructions. I can't seem to locate the original verdict but multiple news sources are corroborating my version.
Last edited:
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Please... The accusation was that I used an llm output without verifying it myself - an AI slop link if you will.
I never said that AI slop doesn't exist - I am just of the opinion that there are valid and useful uses of this technology.
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
Cherry picking quotes to support your narrative I see. From the article you cited:
I highly recommend you watch 12 angry men to see how fallible juries are. I just can't imagine so many of you actually want to die on this hill.
Last edited:
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
Nothing I said wasn't true though. I guess we see it doesn't much to be a college student in the USA.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Yeah, you're right.. I can't seem to find the original jury verdict but as you can clearly see, this case did go to jury unlike what you claimed.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Yes, and there are also multiple news sources covering the same thing that don't corroborate your version. That's why I want to see the actual source or at very least a quote of the ruling instead of a summary.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
I'm going to circle all the way back. I don't think anyone argued that a jury's decision is sacrosanct. Did anyone make that argument?
Myself, I think that for the purpose under actual discussion -- a civil trial -- the system works as designed, including the fact that punitive damages exist. Including the fact that appeals courts exist.
Forget the minutiae here: neither one of us was entirely right, nor entirely wrong. We both got details wrong, and that's okay -- it's not as though legal documents are easy to find online, and they're even harder to accurately parse.
What's your position here? I don't mean about the Timpa case (where the civil case was ruled in favor of Timpa's estate) I mean in the ChatGPT case.
At minimum, shouldn't this be a matter for a jury, as finders of fact?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I note that your post has nothing to say in reply to my quote about the Castile shooting. If I'm "cherry-picking," I'm not the only one in this conversation doing it.
I'll accept that that's something a jury could choose to do. But there's a reason why they aren't given the option of returning a "mistrial" verdict. They're supposed to be deciding whether the prosecution proved their case or not. If they didn't, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause prevents the state from trying the case a second time.
So, yeah, they could have violated their oath to "a true verdict render, according to the law and evidence," by voting that the state had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt when they actually (as explicitly stated in the interview) believed they hadn't, in order to give the prosecutor an unconstitutional second attempt at a conviction.
You...
[Ahem]
You are aware that Twelve Angry Men is a work of fiction, right?
And, if it were real, that Juror #6 (I think?) having to bring up all of the problems with the evidence himself says less about how fallible juries are, and more about how incompetent the defense attorney was, for not pointing out at trial any/all of the things that ended up convincing the jury to acquit his client?
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
... point us in the direction of where anyone said juries are infallible? That's disingenuous as hell. That's also why the appeals process exists.
You're making up straw men. I also haven't seen anyone say that there are no valid uses of this technology?
It sure seems like you're taking the position that "no matter the outcome, the (AI) companies aren't liable if their products cause harm." Is that your position?
If that's your position, is that an absolutist position? That there's no scenario in which an LLM can cause harm? Or just this scenario?
I'm not nitpicking, rather, I'm genuinely curious if that's your position.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Most of us share that opinion. Many of hold a well-supported point of view that most users of these tools do not understand their limitations or risks, and many that DO understand them think they are smart enough to avoid misuse. Some of those people might be right.
In related news, 80% of employees consider themselves to be in the top 20% of performers in similar jobs.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Have you ever heard of the Bubonic Plague, Manuel? It was very popular here at one time. A lot of pedigreed hamsters came over on ships from Siberia.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
If you replace ChatGPT with Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, JD Vance, and others... yes! They've been gaslighting him to greatness very publicly for years.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Just change the mode to be efficient/robotic. Also instruct it to be formal and treat itself as a computer system.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
I guess you've somehow managed to get through life so far without noticing there are degrees of heat.
Try this: put an empty pan on the stove on high heat for about five minutes, then pick it up by the pan - not the handle. I mean, you wanted a hot pan, right? And hot is just...hot, in your world, so no problem.
Pro tip - stop digging. You lost and lost hard.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
This is completely random and off-topic, but I was homeless a few years ago and still active here on Ars. The day I moved into an apartment I posted about it, and while I can't remember exactly what you replied, I do remember that it was heartfelt, kind, and supportive.
That was 2.5 years ago.
It still brings me a smile every time I think of it.
Thank you for being you, Orwell.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
This is fair.
I was responding to a comment about why people question juries (this was about McD case not Chatgpt).
I'm saying that the reason people can question juries is because they do often get things wrong. And often it's the same people who are now defending them who will decry their idiocy.
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
I specifically replied to one who said 'why do people who question decisions act like juries are made up of unintelligent people who didn't listen to facts'.
I replied that juries do often get things wrong and that the same people defending them will decry them when the time suits them.
Are you serious? There are literally thousands of posts on this forum saying this exact thing.
And if you agree with me then we have no quarrel on this.
No it isn't my position. I don't know any reasonable person that would take that position.
If anything, I think LLMs have the ability to cause great harm and I think they should be regulated heavily.
Upvote
-8
(0
/
-8)
Great.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I don't see any daylight between us in the opinions you posted here.
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
I'm really not sure what a judge defending the verdict says anything about the jury actually messing up.
There are plenty of justices that will defend the Supreme Court in revoking Roe v Wade but that doesn't make them right.
My entire point is that juries can and have been wrong many times - there's a reason why people do frivolous lawsuits, they work! At least sometimes.
Sometimes you can swindle a jury (especially if the prosecution/lawyers mess up).
Yes in that case the jury can ask for additional questions to ascertain facts and/or return a null verdict.
The entire point here is that the legal system is incredibly flawed because people are flawed.
The original commenter I responded to asked - 'why do people act like juries are unintelligent people without access to the facts of the case'.
Because they mess up all the time (sometimes because the prosecution messes up and doesn't provide them with all the facts of the case).
Oh my god! Really?! Are you saying that Batman isn't real either?
That's my entire bloody point. It's so easy for the jury to mess up because one or more of the lawyers didn't do their job correctly.
A jury also has a responsibility to ask more questions if needed and seek clarification. They don't because they have lives they want to return to and this isn't their job.
The entire process and incentives are flawed.
Last edited:
Upvote
-8
(0
/
-8)
Huh, the misogynistic weirdo I blocked ages ago for misogynistic weirdo shit is derailing the thread so he can relitigate a woman getting hideously burned, over and over again? How weird.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I will go off on a tangent and talk about something that has bothered me for years. For literal decades I thought that Twelve Angry Men had shown innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Then one day I thought some more and realized that I would have had to vote to convict. (In the real world, I would have been disqualified from the jury because I oppose the death penalty.)
I was mostly sold on there being reasonable doubt on each individual piece of evidence, although some pushed that to the breaking point. The problem is that you have a bunch of independent pieces of evidence that are all pointing to the accused. Voting to acquit means that you think most of them, if not all of them, simply aren't true. It was never explicitly laid out this way, but here is the chain of events* that Juror #6 was advocating and my take on their likelihood:
- A young man and his father get into an argument. The son shouts "I'm gonna kill you" although he didn't mean it, and then storms out to watch a movie. (That's very reasonable.)
- Sometime between then and when he returns, the son loses his switchblade knife with a very distinctive design. (Not particularly likely, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say it is reasonable.)
- A criminal breaks into the father's apartment. He is roughly the height of the son. (A bit unlikely, but reasonable.)
- The criminal has the same model of knife as the son. Although the pawnshop owner who sold the knife to the son said he had never seen that model before, juror #6 is able to find one, therefore there is reasonable doubt whether the knife was actually rare. (OK, are we to assume that the pawnshop owner was committing perjury? That the son and the criminal independently got their hands on two of the first copies of that model that made it into the city? That the knife was not particularly unusual, but by sheer dumb luck the pawnshop owner had never seen one before? This all seems unlikely.)
- The criminal kills the father with his knife, holding it in an overhand grip. The son was familiar enough with knife fighting to not use the knife in an overhand grip, but the criminal who broke in was not. (Possible, but not very likely. You'd think the criminal would be at least as familiar with knife fighting as the son.)
- A woman who witnessed the murder identified the killer as the son. She was, in fact, committing perjury in a capital punishment case because she was too vain to admit that she needed glasses, and wasn't wearing them at the time. Thus she could not see clearly enough to identify the son. (Seriously?)
- An old man heard someone run downstairs, but couldn't see who it was because he was too old and too far away from the door to make it in time. Instead of telling the truth he testified in a capital punishment case that he saw the son because he was lonely and wanted attention. (Seriously?)
- The son returns and is unable to give the name of the movie he saw to the police because he is too upset by the sight of his father's body on the floor. (Very reasonable.)
* This may not be exact, it's been a long time since I watched the Henry Fonda movie.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Ah but the burden is asymmetric. The defence doesn’t have to show 'this full chain is likely'.
They only need to show that, given the frailties in the prosecution’s proof, guilt isn't established beyond a reasonable doubt.
A juror can have a coherent doubt about one or two pivotal items ( identification, timing, ability to hear/see, knife etc.) and that alone can block conviction, even if other items 'point the same way'.
An acquittal does not require believing an elaborate alternative narrative: it can rest on 'I'm not sure it was him'.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
RE: The pawn shop clerk (same caveat that I haven't read it since highschool in the '90s)
He also could've been
- Unwilling to cooperate without a warrant
- Not been an overly observant person
- Been IDGAF because his wife left him recently and hookers and coke are expensive
- Been a "functional" alcoholic/addict that barely knew what day it was much less what came across his counter
- Just fuckin' with some random guy in his shop not buying anything and/or keeping him from getting his work finished
- Just another asshole
One of the reasons I've never really gotten into Sherlock Holmes is because the balance of probabilities is only correct most of the time - but enough weird-ass random shit has happened to me to know that weird-ass random shit happens, although not quite as often in this world as on Discworld.
Your interpretaion really makes me want to go check it out from the library today. Thanks for getting my brain out of (gestures at... everything) for abit!
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Because lawn darts and Ford Pintos are awesome and should still be around!
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
One of the things I appreciated about the Cumberbatch/Freeman series was that they gave Holmes' probabilities plays a tweak on the "House" treatment, where the initial diagnosis is incomplete, and that his wily foes make him play the Vizzini game. Nor, do I think, was the literary version quite as big on the mathematics of probability, but more on positioning things in binary terms. To the extent Conan Doyle took liberties with that I'd have to pick them up for a re-read. It has been a while.
Not as big a corpus, but the Benoit Blanc movies show a sense of him knowing when he can prove something and when he knows he has to bluff someone into giving away their game.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
When it's the same judge who tried the case? Well, I suppose that depends on the judge.
If they're competent and impartial, as judges should be, then they have enough experience in the matter of cases that go to trial and in the particular law being adjudicated to know what a competently prosecuted case looks like. They also have seen all the evidence that the jury has, and should be able to have an informed legal opinion about whether the state proved their case.
If they lack either impartiality or competence, then, well, what does that say about how the case might have been presented to the jury?
Sure. But right or wrong, their opinion on the matter is much more likely to be based on knowledge of the relevant legal principles.
Like, IANAL. I think that Dobbs v. Jackson is a morally abhorrent precedent for SCOTUS to set; that it contradicts the assurances given by certain justices before Congress during their appointment process; and that it was almost certainly decided for ideological reasons rather than the legal justifications provided in the ruling.
That said, I'm not going to offer any sort of commentary on the legalities of the majority opinion on Dobbs because IANAL and have no expertise or training in the matter.
Absolutely.
But my points are:
- A lot of the time, when they are wrong, it's because someone (the judge, the prosecution, the defense, etc.) screwed up, and
- right or wrong, they came to their conclusion based on a lot more information than a casual critic of their decision on the Internet is likely to have access to.
I am sure that someone could, to go back to the McDonald's case, go over the transcripts and jury instructions and evidence exhibits and come to a different conclusion than the jury did. Heck, if McDonald's thought it was a definitively losing case, they would have settled rather than going to trial.
But insisting that the case was unfairly decided having done none of that work, simply because "hot coffee is served hot," and therefore the jury must have ruled wrong... It's an arrogant disregard to the fact that life and legal issues are often more complicated than a ten-thousand-foot overview might suggest.
Sometimes, sure. But more often the reason they're done is, especially when the plaintiff has deeper pockets than the respondent, they can be ruinously expensive to go to court to defend, even if you're 100% in the right.
I don't think that principle is particularly useful in the McDonald's case.
I don't see how that's relevant to the Crutcher case: they had the facts. They just didn't think those facts were enough to prove the charges.
What is a "null verdict," in this scenario?
When I look up the term, I either get references to someone who can't be punished further (e.g. someone already serving a life sentence facing more years in prison) who is convicted but sentenced to zero punishment for their crime, or references to jury nullification.
I don't see how either applies to the Crutcher case, where the police officer involved was capable of being punished further, and was acquitted on the merits of the case.
No argument.
That was me. And see above. My point is less the idea that the jury can't be wrong (my specific phrasing was poking fun at a different poster who thought that AI companies shouldn't be held responsible for their products because people should take personal responsibility for their own actions) than that randos on the Internet think they have a better understanding of the case based on a half-remembered joke on a late night show than the jury did when they decided the case.
Sure, maybe they got it wrong. But maybe, just maybe, before arguing for hours on the Internet, people should consider the possibility that maybe the jury had access to facts and explanations of the legal principles that your average Internet commenter doesn't, and the issue is perhaps slightly more complicated than "hot coffee is served hot."
I don't get your point. You seemed to be contending that Twelve Angry Men is a realistic portrayal of the issues with the American jury system.
Are you saying that you think that Batman is a realistic portrayal of the secret lives of American billionaires, too?
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I already had them on ignore, but I don't remember specifically why.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Here you go:
Told ya.
I'm very, very happy for you. I'm glad to see you posting and it warms my heart to hear you're doing better.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
You’ve invoked IANAL twice. That’s fine, but it’s still an argument from authority.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to spot bad reasoning. I’ve met doctors who prescribe antibiotics for viral infections. I don’t need an MD to know that’s wrong.
Yes, judges/juries see more evidence than we do but that doesn’t make their conclusions immune from criticism. Expertise increases probability of correctness - it doesn’t guarantee it.
It isn't arrogance to have coherent, substantive, articulable differences with an expert or with 12 non-experts selected at random.
That's just not true though - speculation about a hypothetical gun is insufficient for reasonable doubt. There were no furtive/rapid gestures/movements, no concealment of hands, no sudden aggressive shifts, the whole argument of the officer was: 'maybe there was a gun'. This is pure conjecture not an articulable threat.
That the jury believed that the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable but they acquitted anyway. Anyway, this is a moot point - this never happens.
I'd be careful dismissing all critique like that. Instead of dismissing critics as 'randos', address the specific arguments.
Expertise isn't a force field - if someone makes a weak argument, rebut it. If they make a strong one, engage it.
As for invoking Twelve Angry Men: I was not claiming that Hollywood equals reality.
I brought it up as an illustration of a simple point: that juries are human. They bring bias, fatigue, ego, doubt, persuasion, stubbornness. Sometimes they err. Sometimes they correct themselves. That is the point of that example.
Upvote
-5
(1
/
-6)
Holy shit!
I deleted this account for a year and thought all my old posts were "deleted account 5743588646".
Good to know, and thanks!
ETA: Oh, still is, lol
Seriously, how'd you even find this?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Resistance
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
The ars forum search function, I just searched for posts containing Mindststic written by orwelldesign, then scrolled to the date mentioned and it was right there.
Do yourself a favor and screenshot it, it clearly means a lot to you and I'd hate for it to be lost.
You're worthy of compassion and kindness.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Well, you've obviously never dated me, lol
ETA: This is a light-hearted self-deprecating joke and is not intended or meant to be taken seriously. Thus the "lol"
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Just because technology doesn't cause it all the time doesn't mean technology can't make it worse than it would have been to begin with. Somewhat more importantly, this lawsuit is clearly focusing on the defective by design aspect of this chatbot. It's a HUGE problem for these companies and one they've basically been hand waving away. Whether you and the rest of the Libertarians out there like it or not, products that are defective by design are unlawful, full stop. It doesn't matter whether they're a chatbot or any other product. This is a pretty well established area of the law and this will almost certainly make it to discovery because these claims are the opposite of frivolous.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)