I mean — the ideal of an SQL query is you say what you want, and it’s up to the engine to determine how to give it to you — that is, being declarative.
Part of it is there’s so many different ways to represent data, and even more ways to compute a given quantity — but the quantity itself often has a clear definition (sum this column from all rows where this holds, say)
Irrelevant. Genetic code is a human interpreted construct. It lacks infinite complexity because it is a mirror that we can understand and use. Like a code for a computer. You are not looking far enough into the real world.
Technology means there is only one truly stable compromise, imo: I am free to use whatever technical means at my disposal to encrypt my communications and those of my customers (!), and you can try to read them as much as you want.
Combined with the right to communicate across borders, you can get quite a bit of privacy: a server in both sides of a geopolitical conflict and they've got to collaborate to track you.
And yet metadata collection is both unavoidable (if you don't collect it, your geopolitical opponents will) and should be enough. We don't need chat control in a world where I get precision-targeted ads -- it's not even about freedom of speech or privacy, it's about freedom of thought.
> a server in both sides of a geopolitical conflict and they've got to collaborate to track you.
With a server on the other side of a geopolitical conflict (actual conflict, not a mere discontinuity in legalscape) you trade a risk of the government reading your chats for a risk of the same government (which you don't trust for a good reason) locking you up for treason and espionage.
E(accident due to going faster) vs E(worse outcome due to waiting)
Your argument only makes sense if the only possible bad thing is a car accident -- to make my point clearer, would you take a 1% chance of losing 100$ to avoid a 50% chance of losing 10$?
Depends how much money you have, but it can be a perfectly rational decision.
It seems to me that @tekne is comparing the LLM to a reference source. I took them to be pointing out that unlicensed-practice laws don’t crack down on textbooks, or reading the law for yourself (or even going jailhouse-lawyer or trying to defend yourself in court).
Rather, that the laws aim to keep the professional title commercially reliable, so that it indicates to the public that the person using it has proven some minimum level of expertise.
So the analysis would turn on whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor, or whatever—not whether it communicated legal or medical facts.
Now, to my mind, the facts are the least interesting part of those professions—I pay those professionals precisely for their nuance and judgment and experience beyond the bare facts of a situation. And I think the ChatGPTs of the world do embellish their responses with the kind of confidence and tone that implies nuance/judgment/experience they don’t have.
But that isn't the standard. You said it yourself "whether a reasonable person would confuse ChatGPT for a practicing lawyer, or doctor"
So as long as people don't think that there is a licensed lawyer or doctor on the other end typing out those responses, and they don't, this should be legal.
Part of it is there’s so many different ways to represent data, and even more ways to compute a given quantity — but the quantity itself often has a clear definition (sum this column from all rows where this holds, say)
reply