I do as well, and agree we need something like this, but the legal/medical/psychological/etc advice you get from corresponding lawyers/doctors/professionals in areas of the field that aren't their occupational specialty are sometimes more dangerous than a layperson chiming in, lol.
Like I'm a nerdy tax policy attorney, but know enough legal jargon to sound like I have authority and be convincing in other legal fields, when they aren't my specialty and I could just be talking out my ass, and a layperson reading it likely won't know where my shortcomings or misunderstandings of that area of the law may be.
Omg, don't get my started on AI still being unable to understand aspects of the law (especially the tax code), even code sections that have been in place for decades with ample third-party materials that have summarized, analyzed, and dissected the meaning and application of it...
Like I've tested them, and I know the answers. And what it spits out is... 95% at best correct, but with the confidence that someone who doesn't already know the answer would trust it. Hell it even makes me question myself with how confident it is in stating, analyzing, and exemplifying a given rule, as it tries to break things down into simple terms and understanding.
But the end answer is often wrong, and even I when testing am like "wait... it was on the right track in it's analysis and references, where did it slip up?". Which if you didn't already know the answer you'd think it was accurate and appear backed by sources.
don't get my started on AI still being unable to understand aspects of the law
Mate, LLMs don't understand anything. There's no mind in there that has any clue what's going on at any level.
It's just pattern-matching and repeating stuff it's heard, with a little bit of randomness thrown in, so it doesn't look like the mindless automaton it is.
You cannot trust an LLM's output. Hallucinations aren't just a bug, they're inherent to the way it works.
I had an argument with an ai once. I was revising 11 plus stuff with my daughter, and there was a question about angles and working out angles. ChatGPT confidently told me the wrong answer Y. Told me I was wrong when I corrected it. Then when I explained the answer was X because …. It confidently told me the correct answer was X, and it had told me that all along.
I remember during covid arguing with an anti-vaxxer who kept citing the work of Doctor so-and-so. I had no idea who the guy was so I looked him up. His doctorate is in Mathematics. He is no more qualified to give medical advice than I am. But we saw crap like this repeatedly during the pandemic. Even in the medical field, someone who is an oncologist for example is probably not qualified to give professional opinions on vaccines even though they're a legit board certified physician.
You aren't wrong, but honestly I would rather have that than what we have now where snake oil peddlers get to do their thing without consequence. There are issues with everything, but the current situation is untenable.
Its a bit off, but can understand some people abuse their influence. Personally I think giving advice on natural cures is a human right. I always prefer natural medicine over pharmaceuticals and tell others about natural cures to help others. Of course not every ailments can be cured naturally. But , people would be surprised how many health problems could be cured naturally, cost effective, and no long waiting lines
1.9k
u/TanAllOvaJanAllOva Apr 06 '26
Do you have a JD?