Yes I know I use Artificial Intelligence (something of a misnomer at times) for this blog. But I use it only for generating images that look much better than anything I could come up with manually. They're very simple with straightforward descriptions used to create them. And this blog is not submitted for formal assessment.
That's a very different thing from using it to write assignments. Or, worse, legal documents. The Empty City blog has a good breakdown of a case where a submission cited no less than five cases that don't exist, but this was not obvious without looking up the references that seemed plausible - see the post A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment.
Because with AI one has no certainty of sources. AI submissions often contain made up case references. Or they might cite a genuine case but from a different country - for example how do you know if a legal case involving Ms Jones and the City of Newcastle is about something that happened in the North East of England or in New South Wales? Or they might assume a law in, say, New Zealand applies here. A lot of writing about Law on the internet is poor, badly researched and often does not make it clear just what jurisdiction it refers to, or clarity is assumed from the place of original publication. So AI scanning the web for materials often comes up with a mishmash of information that bears little resemblance to reality.
Even if one can control the information going into AI there is still no guarantee the analysis will match up, even if one does manually modify the text afterwards. It's really best avoided completely.
(Image created with Microsoft 365 Copilot subject to very specific instructions and this is not a formal submission for anything.)
No comments:
Post a Comment