For example, Epic couldn't embed ChatGPT into their application to have it read your forms for you. You can still ask it - but Epic can't build it.
That said, I haven't found the specific terms and conditions that are mentioned but not quoted in context.
Title: "Epic Systems (MyChart)."
227 MB 3:57:01
400 customers
47 years never lost a customer
Epic refuses to be acquired or engage in M&A
These podcasters seem to appreciate Epic. According to this recording, Epic's licensees like the product
According to the podcast, the software was so useful, Epic's future customers asked its founder to start a company
This was before the microprocessor had been invented
No venture capital
Today, 5.7B revenue
Nice
Of course OpenAI's GPT-5 and family are available as an API, but this is the first time I'm hearing about the ability to build on top of ChatGPT (the consumer product). I'm guessing this is a mistake by the journalist, who didn't realize that you can use GPT-5 without using ChatGPT?
It seems that they have a unified TOS for the APIs and ChatGPT: https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/
The seemingly-relevant passage:
> You must not use any Output relating to a person for any purpose that could have a legal or material impact on that person, such as making credit, educational, employment, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other important decisions about them.
You can't use ChatGPT (or other OpenAI offerings) to grade essays, decide who is the least risky tenant, assign risk for insurance, filter resumes, approve a loan, determine sentencing...
Those are things that require human agency for "a person decided this" rather than "we fed it into the program and took the answer."
With all of their claims about how GPT can pass the legal/medical bar etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they're eventually held accountable for some of the advice their model gives out.
This way, they're covered. Similarly, Epic could still build that feature, but they'd have to add a disclaimer like "AI generated, this does not constitute legal advice, consult a professional if needed".
Thankfully we have progressed so this time it will probably take less than 1000 years to progress to full blown chemistry :-)
Oh, and another thing, we still aren't able to quantify if AI coding is a net benefit. In my use cases the biggest benefit I get from it is as an enhanced code search, basically. Which has value, but I'm not sure it's a "$1 trillion per year business sector" kind of value.
E.G. Here's the set of documents uploaded by the customer. Here are my most important highlights (notice that document #68 is an official letter from last year informing the person that form 68d doesn't need to be filled in their specific situation). Here are my takeaways. Here's my recommendation. Apporve or change?
> The AI research company updated its usage policies on Oct. 29 to clarify that users of ChatGPT can’t use the service for “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.”
I think your use case would probably be fine (although I am not a licensed professional, hahaha). I think they mostly want a licensed professional in the “driver seat,” or at least there to eat the responsibility.
It is sort of funny that coding agents became a thing, in this context. The responsibility-sink is irrelevant I guess because code writing doesn’t generate any responsibility as a byproduct.
Here's a case of several judges getting caught using AI to write error-filled judgements[1]. So it's not just lazy lawyers (several news articles over the past 3 years or so), but the courts themselves!
1 - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/two-fe...
I would examine the inferred output, decide if it is fit for purpose, and if so then commit it. If not, I would either refine my prompt or make the fixes to the inferred code myself.
Would this hypothetical legal professional not verify that the inferred output (which is really a prediction) is correct?
Additionally, code review with the proper tools can be done relatively quickly and it's always a good idea to get a second opinion - even that of an LLM. I suppose that the human could write the code then ask the LLM for a code review - but that is not common practice.
Giving it a document and asking it about edge cases or things that may be not covered in the document. Asking it for various ways that one could argue against a given pleading and then considering ways that those could be headed off before they could even be raised.
In my on cases (writing short fiction), having it act as an editor and identifying grammatical mistakes, contradictory statements, ambiguous sentences, and tone mismatch for a given character has been very helpful... but I don't have it write the short fiction for me.
---
For software where it may be used to generate some material (write a short function that does...) the key is short. Something that I can verify and reason about without too much effort.
However, changes that are of the scope of hundreds of lines are exhausting to review no matter if an LLM or a junior dev wrote them. I would expect that similar things would be the case of several paragraphs or pages of legalese that would need additional levels of reading and reasoning and verifying.
If its too much to reason about and verify - its asking too much.
I'd no more trust an LLM to find citations to cases than I'd trust it to program a lesser known framework (where they've been notorious for hallucinating up functions that don't exist).
>Giving it a document and asking it about edge cases or things that may be not covered in the document.
As an attorney, how am I supposed to trust that it gave a proper output on the edge cases without reading the document myself?
>Asking it for various ways that one could argue against a given pleading and then considering ways that those could be headed off before they could even be raised.
Do people think attorneys don't know how to do their day-to-day jobs? We generally do not have issues coming up with how to argue against a pleading. Maybe if you're some sort of small-time generalist, working on an issue you hadn't before, but that's not most attorneys. And then, I'd be worried. You are basically not capable of having the expertise needed to verify the model's output for correctness anyway. This is why attorneys work in networks. I'd just find a colleague or a network of attorneys specializing in that area and find out from them what is needed, rather than trusting that an LLM knows all that because it was digested from the entire public Internet.
I've said it here before too, I think people talking about using AI as an attorney don't really understand what attorneys do all day.
It is only a power tool if it works reliably and predictably. If you have to do all the work anyway then the tool is adding to your burden not saving time and effort.
Its yes-man abilities etc. will not help you and its always helpful to talk to another human being in the loop during therapy so that you know you are actually being sane.
Don't ever compromise money on your mental health.
If you need to, either join offline anonymous support groups or join some good forums/discord servers/reddit about therapy if you can not even afford that. They are good enough and I think personally for me, whats therapatic is to try to understand and help the other person who was struggling just as I once was y'know
But saying to use chatgpt as a therapist is just something that I hate a lot simply because in my opinion, it might actually even be harmful but I am not sure.
This is genuinely hilarious given what LLMs are.