389
I think a better solution is to ban techbros from giving serious economic or cultural advice and take computers away from business majors.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
389 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
82363 readers
3844 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don’t get how some of these tech company CEOs who came up as engineers can be pushing this bullshit. I get once the company got big they started hiring business bros. But some big companies still have CEOs that were once engineers. You’d think they would know better.
Please don't take them entirely away. Maybe just internet access? 30ish years had to do accounting by hand. In those green ledgers. It took approximately twelve times longer to do it by hand than to do it with a computer. And it made me shrimp like 5 times worse. I needed an architect's table what angled the top of it in order to work properly but I could neither get one supplied by the employer nor afford to give one to the employer.
Not all technology is bad
Oddly specific gripe, I'll allow it.
thank you i have others in jars in the back
Would be nice if regular legal and health advice was in any way affordable though
Hell yeah, let's hold them accountable for disinformation. They'll be gone completely in a matter of months.
Want to get rid of that responsibility? Direct the user to the source. Oh wait, that's just a search engine.
I may have become too cynical but, as is often the case when you dig deeper, this sounds like the result of lobbyists trying to protect licensing rather than people.
We can be dumb, but we’ve been doing web searches for legal and medical advice for ages because it is too damned expensive and time consuming to go to professionals for every little thing. Not to mention, doctors have so little time for you that it is hard to get them to listen to the whole story to make connections between symptoms.
The LLMs already tell you that they aren’t licensed professionals and, for many, provide citations for their sources (miles better than your typical health website).
As a personal anecdote, my son was having stomach pain but was planning to tough it out. He checked with ChatGPT and it recommended he go to the ER. He did, and if he hadn’t, he would likely be dead now. He spent 3 days in the hospital having his bowels unobstructed through a tube in his nose.
There is value in people having that kind of information at their fingertips.
Regulation is absolutely needed, but I would rather they focus on protecting us from AI being used for military purposes, mass surveillance, etc. rather than protecting citizens from ourselves.
Are you in the US? My take away here is American healthcare is bad but we're treating the symptom not the disease.
Yeah, I’m in the US and I agree. Though it is going to take some serious change to treat the problem. In the meantime, this is at least a stopgap solution for people who don’t have a lot of options.
Wait, he thought he could sit that pain through at home? Your son is tough as nails. Give him a hug for me and everyone else who's had that four day n-g tube delight.
Yeah, he is pretty tough. I wish I could hug him, he is about a 10 hour drive from me. That tube was nightmarish from what he’s told me.
This reads as a way to protect white collar industries from the effects of AI without addressing the root problem--that AI does not actually think, and that it is little more than a meat grinder full of scraped data.
In other words, Artificial Stupidity. Why is it CALLED intelligent?
it had that name for a really long time
a couple decades ago, a program learning was really impressive
I remember when LISP was available for my Atari 800.
Yes, I had the FULL 64K of memory installed.
marketing
This bill gave us the "best" interaction:
https://bsky.app/profile/badmedicaltakes.bsky.social/post/3mghyg5eufk2m
A Bluesky skeet from @badmedicaltakes.bsky.social:
"Twitter user eoghan:
How dare poor people get free medical advice
<quote tweet from Twitter user Polymarket: BREAKING: New York bill would ban AI from answering questions related to medicine, law, dentistry, nursing, psychology, social work, engineering, & more.>
Twitter user YBrogard79094:
JUST MAKE HEALTHCARE ACCESSIBLE
Twitter user eoghan:
AI is literally free healthcare. Being a communist must be exhausting"
Some horses you can't even lead to water. Let alone make them drink.
You can google your simptoms and there probably are some reliable sites but a hallucinating chatbot is a bad idea. Not to mention some people suggested treating covid with chlorine, vinegar etc....
Sounds like a start. More is needed though.
The bill targets AI chatbots that impersonate licensed professionals — such as doctors and lawyers — and bars them from providing “substantive response, information, or advice” that would violate professional licensing laws or constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
It also mandates that chatbot owners provide “clear, conspicuous, and explicit” notice to users that they are interacting with an AI system, with the notice displayed in the same language as the chatbot and in a readable font size. However, the bill clarifies that this notice for users, which indicates that they are interacting with a non-human system, does not absolve the chatbot owners of liability.
AI in the legal field could be useful for assisting an actual legal professional in compiling precedent based against on-the-books laws, so long as it cites sources and they verify them.
In the medical field, it could be useful for spotting anomalies between multiple images such as X-rays or cross-referencing medical documents WHEN USED BY A PROFESSIONAL.
But the thing is, it should be a tool - carefully used - to enhance the existing profession, not replace actual professionals.
But the thing is, it should be a tool - carefully used - to enhance the existing profession, not replace actual professionals.
except in practice, the "professionals" just take the LLM's word as unassailable and disengage their brains. funny that, the gap between theory and reality
Yup, but those are the cases that make the news. There's always gonna be some stupid/lazy ones
tell me you haven't worked with anyone in the medical industry without telling me you haven't worked with anyone in the medical industry
source: 20 years as a medical accountant
I mean.
Is the wikipedia responsible for you reading an article about a law and then taking that as legal advice?
[Edit: if you are downvoting this, downvote away, but you owe an argument below as to why. I promise this exact argument will come up in the courts over this issue]
Is the wikipedia responsible for you reading an article about a law and then taking that as legal advice?
Is the U.S. House of Representatives [or any equivalent publisher of the law] responsible for you reading the text of a law itself and then taking that as legal advice?
Wikipedia doesn't give "legal advice", it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.
That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
Wikipedia doesn’t give “legal advice”, it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.
That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
It seems like your argument is that because Wikipedia "gets it right" and has cited sources, it isn't liable? Which I promise, is not how liability works.
What if it was Wikipedia versus "Some random sovcit facebook post" then? Is the Sovcit post liable because its sources are bullshit? Since there sources are random bullshit and or unknown, do they absorb liability? Again, its the same case, that is not how liability works.
People are going to have to acknowledge you can't have it both ways.
Also..
with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.
C'mon. Plenty of LLM's can also hallucinate sources which are easily verified. And like with Wikipedia, one could go check them.
Wikipedia isn't giving you advice, it's giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Also, people get in trouble for giving legal advice, artificial unintelligence('s companies) should as well.
Wikipedia isn’t giving you advice, it’s giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Okay lets try this then:
Chat bots aren't giving you advice, it’s giving you information. There is a big difference between me taking information and forming an opinion, versus being given an opinion by a system that is responding to a specific situation explained to it.
Show me the difference.
Also, people get in trouble for giving legal advice,
No, they don't, unless they are genuinely misrepresenting their positions. Sovcit influencers are well within their rights to make up all kinds of gobbly-gookey-garbage pseudo-legal advice.
People who get in trouble are those that follow the gobbly-gookey-garbage pseudo-legal advice.
the difference between giving information and giving advice is context. if i know your situation, i am giving advice. if i am just talking about the law in general, i am giving information. the former, i know context. the latter, i don't.
I could see the argument for things that aren't particularly important, but to continue with the legal example, it seems akin to asking a practicing lawyer a question and asking someone that watched Boston Legal when it aired and can quote James Spader.
Unfortunately, with the potential for a hallucinatory response, anything beyond quite simplistic queries shouldn't be relied on with more weight than a crutch of toothpicks.
I don't think you are wrong, but again, thats not the case.
You're making an argument about speech here.
Lets say you make a fan website based entirely on fine tuned LLM which acts and responds as James Spader from Boston legal. Are you liable if a user of that website construes that speech as legal advice?
If you are willing to give up access to speech so easily, I have almost no hope for Americans in the near future.
What laws like this do is create an incredibly high pass filter to in positions of established power. Its literally suicidal in regards to freedom of speech on the internet.
The right answer is that if you are dumb enough to have gotten your legal advice from an AI hallucination of James Spader, you get to absorb those consequences. The wrong answer is to tell people they aren't allowed to build fan websites of James Spader giving questionable legal advice.
I'm your example, say you go to a lawyer and ask legal questions. If the lawyer is not providing legal advise (I. e. taking on the role of being your lawyer and representing you in that matter), they are required by law to express that at the begining so that they will not be held liable because they are a legal professional.
Wikipedia, Google, chatgpt etc are not legal authorities or legal professionals.
There is also no human entity to hold legally responsible if the LLM hallucinates or sites a source that is not factual (satire for instance).
We also know that the vast majority of people who use chatbots do not get the sources they come from.
So. When Wikipedia presents information it is not giving legal advice. That is born out in case law.
The reason it's dangerous to get legal or health information from a chatbot is the same reason you wouldn't want to randomly trust reddit.
No lawyers are going to reddit to get help writing legal briefs. We have seen lawyers using LLM'S for that though.
Presumably such a site would be visually obvious as parody. Having it give jokey answers in as a caricature would be one thing. If you dressed it up as a professional legal advice service for opinions on criminal law from Alan Shore, that could be problematic.
At a certain point of information sharing, we should want a high bar for the ones providing the answers. When asking nuanced questions, we should want for the answer to come from knowledge, not memory. I made an example in this other comment.
I'm not sure I agree with your 'right answer' bit. Personally, I'd prefer dumb people to be protected in a similar way that I want the elderly protected from losing their savings from an email scam.
I promise you, the result of this will be unlimited free speech for corporations and their LLMs, with limited and regulated free speech for you. Save or favorite the comment.
It's the same "protect the children" anti free speech advocacy in a different wrapper, but more appealing to this audience because "llm bad".
They're using your emotional response to not liking LLMs as a tool to trick you into giving away your rights.
Mixed feelings about this. Let me play devils advocate and say that many Americans don’t have access to these resources at all. Having potentially inaccurate resources might be better than nothing, or is that worse?
it's worse. In 4D it's even worser
'Should I use one teaspoon of salt in this recipe, or two?'
Two is ideal.
'Do dogs like chicken wings?'
Wild dogs regularly hunt small animals like hare or chicken for food.
One of these answers results in a bad cake, the other results in a hurt dog. Potentially inaccurate answers aren't much of a problem when the stakes are low, but even a simple question about what to feed a pet could end with a negative outcome.
Hm, good point. Perhaps the overconfidence AI might provide is even worse than knowing you don’t know.
There are billions being sunk into AI. How much health care could that buy? Your logic only makes sense if AI is free. It's not.
Having potentially inaccurate resources might be better than nothing, or is that worse?
You pick up a mushroom in the forest and take it home. If you have no information, do you eat it? If something tells you it's safe do you eat it?
No, misinformation is worse.
the AI devices will just have preambles and disclaimers and word things in ways to refer the user to human resources
If you’re going to be your own lawyer or perform a bit of self surgery, there is no way the AI is helping that situation. Especially if the inherent nature of AI is to validate everything you say.
especially if it's wrong 20-35% of the time
view more: next ›