Hacker News Reader

Comment by mopenstein | Hacker News Reader

But it will bring some percentage of good and some percentage of bad. Which ain't half bad, if you ask me.

What do you do when it flags you or someone you know who's innocent? Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. Normal people don't understand why they are so confident. They're confident because they believe all the data they have is correct. I forsee a future with many faux trials because they don't understand critical thinking.

> Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison.

I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.

This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.

I don't see that as particularly analogous. The average person will have had LLM technology in their own hands for years, whereas with DNA it was completely foreign to them and their only choice really was to trust the experts. And on top of that DNA testing matured and is very useful now.

If you are interested in the history of pseudoscience in the courtroom and methods for deciding what should be permitted in court, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

It is, and will continue to be, a hard problem.

What a quip! What if it's 51% bad?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com