Skip to content

Comment on Expert Witness to ChatGPT: "Show how 3M is 0 percent at fault"parent

Comments

Doesn't the entire court system hinge upon both sides attempting to make facts fit a predetermined conclusion?

No in the case of an expert witness. And ChatGPT is not, should not and can not be party to any legal proceeding. It isn't even remotely ethically sound to help people twist facts for their own purposes.

It doesn't feel intellectually honest to suggest that expert witnesses are there for any other reason than to promote the case of the side that hired them. They rarely outright lie, but "try to make facts fit a predetermined conclusion" is their job description. They would not be brought to the stand otherwise.

I agree that there are ethical problems around helping people twist facts for their own purposes. My point is that everyone in a courtroom except the judge and jury are there to do exactly that. They make the strongest possible case to get their desired outcome from the available facts.

Truth is relative. The Kuleshov effect exists in reality.

You see a solemn man looking at a cup and see a man lost in thought; I see a man irritated that the waitress hasn't returned yet.

Courts are all a show. It doesn't prove which side is "right," only who can make a more convincing argument. LLMs are a natural fit. There is no such thing as justice.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.