Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2024 23:53:06 JST Paul Cantrell

   • Carl T. Bergstrom

   @ct_bergstrom’s observation about police writing reports with LLMs [shudder] generalizes well:

   “Yes, [human processes] aren't always the most accurate, but introducing an additional layer of non-accountability is bad.”

   Communication has consequences. Who is responsible for those consequences?

   My wise English prof mother always says: “Good writing is good thinking.” When we automate the writing, who is doing the thinking?
   https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/113028760435643985

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 26-Aug-2024 23:58:40 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Conversely, if some writing process •is• so full of pro forma boilerplate that it can be automated by LLMs — and I have serious doubts about police reports fitting this criterion, but if so — what is wrong with that process? Why are we making people jump through purposeless hoops, add filler material, check non-information-bearing boxes? In communication, automatability correlates with bullshit.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 00:00:01 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     Having a fluff-filled communication process and then using an LLM to make it efficient is like putting the flush handle 3 blocks away from the toilet and then buying a Humvee to go flush it.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 01:56:56 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • David McMullin

     @mcmullin
     In the case of my spouse, a speech-language pathologist, a lot of boilerplate paperwork exists for CYA legal reasons. Nobody ever reads it. It’s there just for the district to say they did it. A rare case where LLMs might actually help? But we’re back to the same question: if it’s useless, why are we doing it? (The answer is that the district treats lawsuits as costly, but its employees’ time as infinite and free.)

   • Embed this notice
     David McMullin (mcmullin@musicians.today)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 01:56:57 JST David McMullin

     in reply to

     @inthehands
     I think usually those hoops, boilerplate, and check boxes exist so that a machine or database can digest it. For example, I think most of what’s required to go into electronic medical records isn’t to help doctors care for patients, it’s for billing done automatically by the computer.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 04:24:03 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • richh

     @richh
     Yeah, I hope nobody’s trying to automate Miranda Rights with an LLM! But that’s a special case: a magical incantation that exists verbatim for legal reasons.

   • Embed this notice
     richh@mastodon.cloud's status on Tuesday, 27-Aug-2024 04:24:04 JST richh

     in reply to

     @inthehands AFAIK in the UK, it’s not uncommon to have a template which incl. “read them their rights, etc” and includes all the procedural stuff that should happen on every arrest. Officer then pads with specifics - if they miss it out in the words, then on the stand the defence will ask if they actually did “oh, you say you did now, but you ‘forgot’ just an hour after the arrest?”. An LLM seems as likely to miss key steps from CYA procedural boilerplate as a human.