Hacker News Reader

comments here are like "what dumb lawyers". Sure OK. But what can we say here about "GPT-4 passed the bar exam!" and how useful is that data, given that this does not imply GPT-4 has the actual skills of a human lawyer.

View on HN

The lawyer here was probably not smart enough to distinguish between 3.5 and 4. Haven't seen anything to indicate this was the output of GPT-4

oh ok! so if he used gpt-4, still might have been illegal but the output would have been perfect. good to know

Your reading comprehension seems to be as good as that of the lawyer here. You asked what this says about the claim that GPT-4 was good enough to pass the bar. I didn't say anything about GPT-4's quality or the legality here, only that we cannot assume this was the output of GPT-4 without evidence it was given that more people overwhelmingly use the default 3.5-turbo.

I've had Bing Chat (GPT4) hallucinate research studies. It even generated links to them in citation indexes.

The authors existed. They do research in the area, so the title was very plausible.

But the paper didn't exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com