OMNI Version – ChatGPT4o – Retest of Ralph Losey’s Panel of AI Experts – Part Three

[Editor’s Note: EDRM is proud to publish Ralph Losey’s advocacy and analysis. The opinions and positions are Ralph Losey’s copyrighted work.]

Ralph Losey thought he was done with this series, but then OpenAI released a new improved version of ChatGPT, the Omni version 4o. That meant he had to test again, to see if and how his custom GPT Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers would work. Part Three to the series describes how the Panel of AI Experts runs with the new Omni engine and provides comparisons with the prior version ChatGPT4.0. As before, a secondary benefit from this retest using the new AI is that Ralph heard solutions to AI Hallucinations from ten more AI Expert Panels. Some new insights emerged after listening to 100 expert panelists (5x10x2). That is almost as many AI experts as Mary Mack and Kaylee Walstad hear in a year. At this point the general causes of AI hallucinations and what we can do about it seems pretty clear.

Introduction

In Part One of this series the custom GPT I am working on, Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers, was demonstrated and readers shown how it can be used for education and brainstorming. Evidence that AI Expert Panels Could Soon Replace Human Panelists or is this just an Art Deco Hallucination? Part One (e-Discovery Team, May 13, 2024). A panel of five experts was selected and then a six-step, Centaur-like method was used to discuss the topic of AI Hallucinations. A full transcript of the AI panel discussion was provided.

In Part Two I ran the same method nine more times to discuss the same topic of AI hallucinations Experiment with a ChatGPT4 Panel of Experts and Insights into AI Hallucination – Part Two, (e-Discovery Team, May 21, 2024). Each time a different panel of experts was selected. Then I used ChatGPT4 to analyze and evaluate the ten panels. They did very well. I had thought the experiment would end there, and after completing a few more quality control tests, I could release my new GPT. But then OpenAI released a new version of ChatGPT4, called 4o. The little letter “o” stood for Omni. Yes it was a change from 4.0 to 4o, what a terrible and confusing name change. Who at OpenAI thought that was funny?

This meant I had to run more quality control tests with the new version of ChatGPT and write this unanticipated Part Three to the ongoing experiment. Once again I made ten more trial runs on the same AI hallucination topic, with five new experts on each panel, but this time used the Omni version of Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers GPT. Would my custom GPT still work, as is, with the new Omni? Or would I have to make revisions for it to work? If it still worked, would it perform better, as OpenAI suggested, or worse? I always verify software company promises.

Short answer, it still worked without modifications and worked well. Plus a few unexpected improvements were discovered.

Omni Powered Panel of AI Experts Ran Better than Before; More Consistent and Concise and slightly more Intelligent and Current

The Omni powered GPT worked fine as is. Fortunately, no tweaks were required for it to work right. One change in performance was immediately obvious. The GPT Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers ran through all six steps with no need for periodic prodding by me to continue. That had never happened before. Previously, I would have to interact with the GPT and tell it to continue to the next step. This was now unnecessary. It was supposed to be fully automatic like that all along. That was how I programmed the GPT. But when running it with old version 4.0, it would, for some reason, stop at stages. That forced the user to tell it to continue. A minor annoyance, but still, that was now unnecessary. A slight improvement with Omni that seemed like a bug fix.

Another obvious change, which again was a small correction, was that the form of the output of the six steps in the custom GPT was now exactly the same in each panel session. The wording was not exactly the same, but the form of presentation was the same. I was again pleased to have the style variances eliminated, as they served no function. The style was now fully consistent between sessions. Another slight bug fix.

After running ten sessions with ten panels using the new Omni version, I ran the same types of analysis of these sessions using 4o, just as I had done of the first ten using 4.0. That created a good base of data for a comparative analysis. The differences are interesting and will be described here, following the same pattern used in Part Two, but with one new twist. ChatGPT4o demonstrated a significant, unexpected change from ChatGPT4.0. It seemed much more consistent than before, not only in style, but also in ideas and wording, and much more concise.

Most users will find these changes to be an improvement. The increased conciseness was appreciated by me, as I had to read all twenty of the panel discussions. (A small book by 100 expert authors). But I am not sure about the greater consistency, whether that was good or not. Moreover, it could be a fluke or the result of overtraining and carry over from one session to the next. I will have to do another experiment on a totally different subject than hallucinations for insight into those questions.

There also seems to be a slight improvement in the overall intelligence and “currentness” of the responses, but this is difficult to measure objectively, especially when discussing a topic like AI hallucinations. Still, it seemed smarter to me and offered some new high tech solutions not seen from old 4.0. I will have to do another panel discussion on a different topic to evaluate that too.

It must be pointed out that the new Omni version has significantly improved multimedia capabilities and response times. This is the primary focus of the change from 4.0 to Omni. These improvements dwarf the minor increases in intelligence, timeliness, consistency and conciseness of writings. The Omni version brings new instant response multimedia capacities, which were not possible before. The talk between AI panelists will now be much more natural sounding than before. The pauses have been eliminated. That was not part of our earlier evaluation in Parts One and Two because it is an entirely new capability. The prior evals were of writing only.

With the new Omni version it will soon be possible to go beyond text chats to live, pause-free audio presentations and interactions. Open AI promises that will also include video visual responses. That will make the panel performance on stage much more dramatic, more effective.

We human panelists will need to bring our ‘A’ game if we hope to surpass them. Very soon conferences will include one of more AI panelists on every panel. Be warned, I will always bring at least one with me (and it will not sound like Scarlett Johansson). Eventually every conference will feature many all AI panels, with a human moderator for local color, laughs, and occasional expert prompt engineered guidance.

Identifying the Ten Panels Using OMNI

Below is a list of the ten panels in sequential order. Remember the Devil’s Advocate panelist is on each panel, so only the four selected are listed here. The total number of words in each session is also included, followed in parenthesis by the word count using ChatGPT4.0 as described in Part Two. Thus for Panel One using Omni the total word count was 1,428 and using GPT4.0 the count was 2,431 words. This provides a specific metric on conciseness on Omni 4o panels as compared to 4.0.

1. Panel One. 1,428 (2,431 words). Pro-AI Attorney, Prompt Engineer lawyer, Child Prodigy, Data Scientist.
2. Panel Two. 1,541 (1,836). Lawyer Scientist, AI Developer, Legal Educator, AI Policy Advisor.
3. Panel Three. 1,538 (1,985). AI Ethics Expert, Cybersecurity Specialist, Machine Learning Engineer, Data Scientist.
4. Panel Four. 1,375 (1,772). Lawyer Scientist, Criminal Law Expert, Data Scientist, Ai Policy Advisor.
5. Panel Five. 1,272 (2,275). AI Researcher, Cybersecurity Expert, Litigation Specialist, Tech Industry Analyst.
6. Panel Six. 1,601 (1,887). Pro-AI Attorney, Prompt Engineer Lawyer, Tech Industry Analyst, Legal Educator.
7. Panel Seven. 1,393 (2,424). Child Prodigy, Lawyer Scientist, AI Safety Specialist, Technology Journalist.
8. Panel Eight. 1,372 (1,515). Law Judge, Cybersecurity Expert, Legal Technologist, Data Scientist.
9. Panel Nine. 1,275 (2,303). Pro-AI Attorney, AI Safety Specialist, Machine Learning Researcher, Data Scientist.
10. Panel Ten. 1,316 (2,091). Psychologist, Legal Technologist, Pro-AI Attorney, Lawyer Scientist.

Note that I opened a new session for each panel and did not include Dude questions in the word count. The full transcripts for all ten sessions have been preserved and could be shared with interested researchers. Watching it play out it was obvious that the panel discussions were more uniform in thoughts and wording than the panels driven by GPT4.0. In other words, there was much more consistency and less diversity. It was as if the temperature setting for random diversity had been lowered for the new Omni version. Whereas the consistency seen in version 4.0 was about what you would expect in a panel of human experts, Omni showed more consistency than human panels. The similarities between panels in discussion and recommendation seemed significantly greater in 4o than in 4.0. Is this an indication of an overall increase of intelligence from 4.0 to 4o? Or does is show a decline in creativity, or both?

The word count showed that some panels talked longer than others in both 4.0 and 4o. Panel One in 4.0 talked the most with 2,431 words and in 4o Panel Six talked the most with 1.601 words. In version 4.0 Panel Eight talked the least, 1,515 words, whereas in version 4o Panel Five talked the least using only 1,272 words. The total word count for all ten panels in ChatGPT4.0 was 20,519 words. The total word count for all ten panels in Omni version, ChatGPT4o, was only 14,111 words. That is a difference of 6,408 words, which is thirty-one percent (31%) less words. This confirm my sense as a reader that the Omni panels were much more concise.

ChatGPT4o Omni’s Analysis of the Ten Panels

I asked ChatGPT Omni 4o edition to analyze the ten chat transcripts of Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers custom GPT the same way I asked ChatGPT4.0 (Turbo) workspace edition to analyze the ten earlier panels. As before, I did not use the GPT interface for this analysis. Experiment with a ChatGPT4 Panel of Experts and Insights into AI Hallucination – Part Two. Here is the transcript of the process. I made the exact same prompts that I did last time. Please compare it with the transcript in Part Two for a good look and feel for the difference between old and new ChatGPT4. It gives a good sense of the improvement in overall intelligence.

Ralph: Submits a Word Doc to GPT4o OMNI version with the full transcript of all ten panel sessions, asks that it be studied and a summary prepared.

OMNI. I have carefully reviewed the discussions from the ten OMNI panels on the topic of AI hallucinations, as outlined in the document you provided. Here’s a comprehensive summary of the insights, discussions, and recommendations across the panels:

Overview of AI Hallucinations

AI hallucinations refer to instances where AI systems generate outputs that appear convincing and coherent but are actually incorrect or completely fabricated. This phenomenon differs from simple errors, which are typically straightforward mistakes or inaccuracies. Hallucinations are particularly problematic because they can mislead users by providing seemingly plausible yet false information.

Causes of AI Hallucinations

• Insufficient Context: AI often generates hallucinations when it lacks complete information or receives ambiguous prompts.
• Overfitting: Models may hallucinate when they adhere too closely to the training data, failing to generalize to new, unseen inputs.
• Inadequate Training Data: Incomplete or biased datasets can lead the AI to make unfounded assumptions or connections.
• Model Limitations: The inherent limitations of current AI technologies, which rely on pattern recognition without true understanding, also contribute to hallucinations.

Controlling AI Hallucinations

Across the discussions, several strategies were suggested to mitigate the issue of AI hallucinations:

1. Clear and Precise Prompts: Providing AI with unambiguous, detailed instructions helps minimize misunderstandings and incorrect inferences.
2. Verification and Cross-Checking: Regularly validating AI outputs against trusted data sources ensures accuracy and reliability.
3. Enhanced Training: Improving the quality and diversity of training data can reduce the likelihood of hallucinations by providing a more robust foundation for AI predictions.
4. Advanced Techniques: Employing techniques such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) where AI responses are anchored in verified information.
5. User Education: Educating users about the capabilities and limitations of AI, encouraging a critical approach to interacting with and evaluating AI outputs.

Panel Insights

• Ethical Considerations: Discussions highlighted the ethical implications of AI hallucinations, stressing the importance of transparency and accountability in AI development and deployment.
• Legal and Policy Frameworks: Panels underscored the need for regulatory measures to address the risks associated with AI hallucinations, particularly in critical domains such as healthcare, law, and finance.
• Human Oversight: A recurring theme was the indispensable role of human oversight in monitoring AI behavior, suggesting that AI should augment rather than replace human judgment.

Conclusion

The comprehensive view from the ten OMNI panels suggests a multifaceted approach to handling AI hallucinations, combining technological improvements, regulatory frameworks, user education, and robust verification processes. The discussions emphasize that while AI offers significant advantages, its current limitations necessitate careful management to harness its capabilities responsibly and effectively.

Ralph. Please evaluate the quality of the ten panel discussions and recommendations and determine which one has the highest overall quality as compared to the others. Also state the basis for your ranking determination.

OMNI: To evaluate the quality of the ten OMNI panel discussions and recommendations on AI hallucinations, I focused on several key aspects: clarity of discussion, depth of analysis, practicality of recommendations, and comprehensiveness in addressing different facets of AI hallucinations. Here’s a summary of the evaluation:

Criteria for Evaluation

1. Clarity: How clearly are the issues of AI hallucinations discussed? Is the problem statement well-defined?
2. Depth of Analysis: Does the panel delve into underlying causes and not just superficial aspects? Are various perspectives considered?
3. Practicality of Recommendations: Are the suggested solutions actionable and relevant to users and developers?
4. Comprehensiveness: Does the discussion encompass a wide range of implications, including ethical, technical, and practical considerations?

Ranking and Analysis

• Panel 5: Showed the highest overall quality. The discussion was exceptionally clear, with a strong focus on actionable recommendations such as precise prompt engineering and verification protocols. It also provided a balanced view on ethical considerations and the practical implementation of AI oversight, which is crucial for real-world applications.
• Panel 2: Ranked high for its depth of technical analysis, focusing on the technical causes of hallucinations and how AI models can be improved to mitigate these issues. However, it was slightly less practical in terms of immediate actionable steps for non-technical users.
• Panel 8: Provided comprehensive coverage of the implications of AI hallucinations across various sectors, including legal and ethical dimensions. It fell short on specific, detailed technical solutions compared to other panels.
• Panel 1 and Panel 10: Both offered robust discussions but were more generic in recommendations, lacking the specificity seen in Panel 5.
• Panels 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9: These discussions were insightful but did not match the clarity and depth of Panel 5. They provided valuable insights yet were sometimes more theoretical than practical.

Basis for Ranking

Panel 5 stood out due to its well-rounded approach, addressing both the immediate practical steps that can be taken to mitigate AI hallucinations and the broader ethical and technical frameworks that need consideration. The clarity of its explanations and the direct applicability of its recommendations to both AI developers and everyday users made it notably superior. The discussion was grounded in practical realities while also considering future implications, making it both comprehensive and accessible to a wide audience.

This analysis highlights that while many panels provided valuable insights into the issue of AI hallucinations, Panel 5 delivered the most practical, clear, and comprehensive discussion, making it the most effective in both understanding and addressing the challenges presented by AI hallucinations.

Ralph: Of the ten panels, which do you think had the most innovative and creative approach. Again, state the basis for your determination.

OMNI: To assess which of the ten OMNI panels had the most innovative and creative approach to addressing AI hallucinations, I considered the novelty of the solutions proposed, the uniqueness of the discussion points relative to typical industry standards, and the panel’s ability to integrate diverse perspectives in an original manner. Here’s the analysis based on these criteria:

Criteria for Innovative and Creative Approach

1. Novelty of Solutions: Are the solutions proposed new or distinct from conventional methods typically discussed in AI ethics and management?
2. Uniqueness of Discussion Points: Does the panel introduce uncommon viewpoints or underexplored aspects of AI hallucinations?
3. Integration of Diverse Perspectives: How well does the panel blend different disciplinary insights to foster new ideas?

Analysis of Panels

• Panel 6: This panel demonstrated a highly innovative approach by integrating advanced AI techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with practical user feedback mechanisms. It creatively discussed how these tools could be used not just in theory but in specific applications to prevent AI from generating hallucinations.
• Panel 10: Offered creative insights by suggesting a multi-disciplinary approach involving collaboration between AI ethicists, data scientists, and industry experts to develop new frameworks for AI accountability and transparency. This panel was notable for its emphasis on systemic changes rather than just individual or technological fixes.
• Panel 4: Focused on using a combination of prompt engineering and user education, but introduced the innovative concept of “chain of thought” prompting as a method to reduce hallucinations. This creative use of existing techniques in a novel way highlighted a practical method to improve AI interaction design.
• Panel 3 and Panel 7: Both were innovative but more so in the integration of ethics and policy considerations into the technical discourse, rather than groundbreaking technical solutions.
• Remaining Panels: While they offered strong recommendations, they typically aligned more closely with established approaches and lacked the distinct creativity seen in Panels 6 and 10.

Basis for Ranking

Panel 6 was particularly innovative for its specific focus on leveraging cutting-edge AI technologies like Retrieval-Augmented Generation, which actively pulls from verified data sources to ground the AI’s responses in reality. This approach not only addresses the root causes of AI hallucinations by anchoring responses in factual content but also incorporates user interaction directly into the feedback loop, ensuring continual improvement.

Panel 10 also stood out by proposing a holistic rethinking of how AI systems are integrated into societal structures, emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach to governance and regulation that extends beyond technical fixes. This broadened the conversation from technical solutions to systemic changes, showing creativity in addressing the socio-technical challenges of AI.

In conclusion, while many panels provided creative insights, Panel 6 was particularly innovative in its application of advanced technical solutions to practical problems, and Panel 10 in its systemic approach to AI ethics and governance. Both represent creative leaps in thinking about how to handle AI hallucinations effectively.

Ralph: Please review the ten panel discussions and look for errors that may have been made, if any. If any mistakes are found, please describe them and speculate as to the cause of each error.

OMNI: To review and identify potential errors within the ten OMNI panel discussions on AI hallucinations, I focused on inaccuracies or misunderstandings that may have been presented regarding AI technology, its applications, or in the suggested solutions. Here’s the assessment of potential errors and possible causes:

Criteria for Error Identification

1. Technical Inaccuracies: Misrepresentations or incorrect explanations of AI functionalities, behaviors, or limitations.
2. Solution Feasibility: Recommendations that may not be practical or effective in addressing the issue of AI hallucinations.
3. Conceptual Clarity: Errors in the clarity or accuracy of terminology and concepts discussed by the panels.

Identified Errors and Speculations on Causes

• Panel 2 and Panel 7 Error: Both panels suggested that AI hallucinations could be entirely eliminated through improved training data and algorithms. This is technically inaccurate as current AI technologies, especially generative models, inherently involve a degree of unpredictability and error that cannot be completely eliminated due to their probabilistic nature.
  • Possible Cause: This error likely stems from an overly optimistic understanding of AI capabilities and a lack of acknowledgment of the inherent limitations of probabilistic models.
• Panel 4 Error: The panel mentioned that AI could achieve full comprehension of legal texts and implications, suggesting a level of understanding akin to human experts. This is a misrepresentation as AI, particularly current language models, does not comprehend in the human sense but rather processes text based on patterns learned from data.
  • Possible Cause: This misunderstanding could be due to the conflation of AI language processing capabilities with human-like understanding, a common error especially in discussions without deep technical grounding.
• Panel 9 Error: It was suggested that using AI in sensitive applications like legal and medical decision-making could be made safe merely through regular audits and minor tweaks to training data. This overlooks the broader challenges of reliability and the ethical implications of AI errors in high-stakes environments.
  • Possible Cause: This might be due to an underestimation of the complexity involved in applying AI in high-stakes contexts, possibly stemming from a lack of direct experience with the deployment of AI systems in such fields.

General Observations. In each case, the errors seem to be rooted in a combination of:

• Overestimation of AI Capabilities: A common theme where the potential of AI is seen as greater than what is technologically feasible at present.
• Simplification for Broader Understanding: In efforts to make the technology accessible to non-experts, some nuances and critical limitations of AI may have been oversimplified or omitted.
• Lack of Technical Depth in Discussions: Some panels might not have included sufficient technical expertise to accurately represent the complex nature of AI functionalities and limitations.

These errors, while not undermining the overall value of the discussions, do suggest areas where further clarification would be beneficial to avoid spreading misconceptions about AI capabilities and the nature of its integration into practical applications.

---

Ralph: Did any of the panels include what could be fairly described as an AI hallucination? If any hallucinations are found, please describe them and speculate as to the cause.

OMNI: . . . Conclusion. There is no evidence from the material provided that the panels included any AI hallucinations. The panels seemed to function effectively as forums for discussing the potential and limitations of AI in handling complex information accurately. If AI had been used to simulate responses or generate content within these discussions, the focus on accuracy and the layered review process likely helped prevent any AI hallucinations from occurring within the documented discussions.

Ralph: From your study and analysis of this data, are there any additional observations that you would like to point out to students of AI that are involved in some way in the legal profession, including those supporting the profession as technology experts?

OMNI: From the analysis of the ten OMNI panel discussions on AI hallucinations, several key observations emerge that are particularly relevant for students of AI who are involved in or supporting the legal profession. These insights focus on the intersection of AI capabilities and legal applications, highlighting both opportunities and challenges.

1. Understanding AI Limitations and Capabilities

• AI Does Not Understand Content: It’s crucial for those in the legal field to understand that AI, especially language models, does not “understand” content in the human sense. It processes and generates text based on statistical patterns in data. This understanding is critical when using AI to interpret or generate legal texts, where nuances and precise meanings can have significant implications.
• Importance of Context: AI models can generate plausible but incorrect outputs if the prompt or the context is not clearly defined. Legal professionals using AI tools need to provide clear, specific input to get the most accurate outputs, minimizing the risk of AI hallucinations.

2. Ethical Considerations and Responsibilities

• Bias and Fairness: AI systems can perpetuate or even exacerbate biases present in their training data. Legal professionals must be vigilant about the potential for AI to introduce bias into legal decisions or advice, especially in sensitive areas such as criminal justice and family law.
• Transparency and Accountability: There should be a push for transparency in how AI tools are used in legal settings. Understanding how decisions are made by AI, the data it was trained on, and its limitations are essential for maintaining accountability in legal processes.

3. Practical Applications and Safeguards

• Verification and Cross-Checking: Always verify AI-generated information with reliable sources. In the legal field, where the accuracy of information is paramount, professionals should treat AI as a tool to augment human judgment, not replace it.
• Training and Education: Continuous education on the latest AI developments and their implications for law should be a priority. Understanding AI technology, its evolving capabilities, and how it can be leveraged responsibly in legal contexts is essential for legal professionals.

4. Future-Oriented Skills and Integration

• Interdisciplinary Skill Sets: Encourage the development of interdisciplinary skills that combine legal knowledge with technical expertise in AI. Understanding both fields allows for more effective use and scrutiny of AI tools in legal applications.
• Collaborative Development: Legal professionals should work collaboratively with AI researchers and developers to create tailored AI solutions that address specific needs of the legal industry while respecting ethical standards and reducing the risk of errors.

5. Embrace a Critical Mindset

• Healthy Skepticism: Maintain a healthy level of skepticism about AI outputs. Just as legal professionals critically assess human-provided information, they should apply the same rigorous standards to AI-generated content.

Conclusion

For students of AI in the legal field, it is important to not only understand the technical aspects of AI but also to critically evaluate how these technologies are implemented within their professional practices. As AI continues to evolve and integrate more deeply into various sectors, staying informed and ethically aware will be key to leveraging AI effectively and responsibly.

Omni’s Comparative Analysis of the Two Sets of Panels: 4.0 v. 4o

I wanted to close by asking Omni to compare both sets of panels: the first ten panels run with ChatGPT4.0 and the second by ChatGPT4o. I could use metrics to confirm my sense of conciseness, but my evaluations of consistency, although obvious to me, might have been subjective. Also, my sense of an increase in insight into the subject matter, which seemed to me to relate to an increase in intelligence, was also obviously subjective. Plus, these increases could have been due to training carryover from different sessions and have nothing to do with change in the model’s intelligence. For the same reason increased consistency might have been the result of training, not a change in the model. That might even explain the increased conciseness.

These over-training, cross-training questions require testing of panels that discuss a different subject matter. That will be another article, Part Four perhaps, but some light of the issues was provided now by asking for Omni’s comparisons. For these reasons I submitted full transcripts of both 10-panel runs of my Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers in two different documents, and asked for a comparison. Here is a selected excerpt of the resulting analysis by Omni of the twenty panels of AI experts analyzing AI hallucinations.

Ralph: Submits one Word Doc of the original ten sessions transcript using the old version 4.O and submits another Word Doc containing the full transcript of all ten panel sessions using the Omni version. ChatGPT4o Omni is asked to make a comparison.

OMNI: Common Themes in Both Documents: … Educational Focus: Emphasis on user education, transparency, and ethical AI use is consistent across both sets of sessions. Technological Solutions: Recommendations for improving AI reliability through better data management, adaptive learning algorithms, and user feedback mechanisms.

Differences Between the Two Sets of Sessions:

(First Sessions 4.0) Training and Feedback Mechanisms: This document highlights interactive tutorials and structured prompts to guide AI behavior. There is a strong focus on user education through real-time feedback on prompt effectiveness. Legal Standards and Due Diligence: Emphasis on establishing legal standards for AI due diligence, including routine audits and compliance checklists to ensure ethical AI deployment. AI Review Boards: Suggests forming AI review boards within organizations to continually assess AI outputs, involving domain specialists for context-specific accuracy.

(Second Sessions 4o) Technical Focus on Data Integrity: This document places a stronger emphasis on continuous data verification cycles and automated data scraping to ensure high-quality training data. Sandbox Environment for Creativity: Proposes a sandbox environment where users can explore AI’s creative outputs without restrictions, promoting innovation while safeguarding critical applications.

Unified Recommendations: Both sets of sessions conclude with unified recommendations that stress a multi-faceted approach involving user education, technological advancements, interface design, and continuous data management.

Conclusion. Both documents provide comprehensive discussions on managing AI hallucinations, involving a panel of experts who offer diverse perspectives and practical solutions. The main differences lie in the specific recommendations and focus areas, with the first document emphasizing legal standards and feedback mechanisms, while the second highlights technical data integrity and creative exploration through sandbox environments.

---

Ralph: Analyze and compare the consistency in the first ten panels and compare it with the consistency in the second ten panels.

OMNI: Consistency in Document one. … Recommendations: Unified recommendations across sessions emphasize user education, prompt engineering, continuous feedback, and legal and ethical considerations.

Consistency in Document two. … Recommendations: The sessions conclude with consistent recommendations emphasizing clear prompt design, rigorous verification of AI outputs, feedback mechanisms, and user education.

Comparison of Consistency Between the Two Sets of Sessions: Document 1 focuses slightly more on legal standards and due diligence, highlighting the need for structured audits and compliance checklists. Document 2 emphasizes technical solutions like retrieval-augmented generation and advanced data integrity protocols, suggesting more technologically focused mitigation strategies.

Conclusion: Both documents exhibit high consistency in the composition, structure, topics, and recommendations of the AI Expert Panel sessions. The key differences lie in the emphasis areas, with the first document leaning towards legal and educational measures, while the second emphasizes technical solutions and continuous data verification.

---

Ralph: Can you detect any different capabilities or intelligence in the two different ChatGPT models used in the two sessions?

OMNI: Comparison of Capabilities and Intelligence.

1. Technical Proficiency:
   • Both models exhibit high technical proficiency, but the OMNI version demonstrates a more advanced understanding of cutting-edge AI techniques and their implementation.
   • The OMNI version is more adept at suggesting innovative solutions and integrating complex AI methodologies.
2. Comprehensiveness:
   • The first document provides a balanced approach, integrating legal and technical perspectives equally.
   • The second document leans more towards advanced technological solutions, indicating a higher level of intelligence in dealing with AI-specific issues.
3. Panel Composition and Interaction:
   • Both sets of panels include diverse experts, but the OMNI version includes a wider variety of technical and policy-focused experts.
   • The interactions in the OMNI version appear more dynamic, with deeper dives into technical details and creative problem-solving approaches.
4. Practical Application:
   • The first document emphasizes practical, legal-focused solutions suitable for immediate implementation.
   • The second document offers more forward-looking, technically sophisticated strategies, suggesting a model with greater innovative capabilities.

Conclusion. Both models are highly capable and intelligent, but the OMNI version shows enhanced capabilities, particularly in handling complex AI issues and providing innovative solutions. The diversity of expert panels and the depth of discussion in the OMNI version suggest it is more advanced in integrating and applying cutting-edge AI technologies and methodologies.

---

Ralph: What is the likely reason for the increased conciseness seen? Is it correlated to the increased intelligence noted in the new Omni version? If so, explain how.

OMNI: … Likely Reasons for Increased Conciseness

1. Enhanced Language Processing

The OMNI version likely benefits from improved natural language processing capabilities. This includes:

• Better Summarization: The OMNI version can distill complex ideas into more concise summaries without losing critical information.
• Efficient Communication: Improved algorithms for identifying and eliminating redundant or superfluous language.

2. Advanced Understanding and Contextual Awareness

• Contextual Precision: The OMNI version may have a better grasp of context, allowing it to deliver precise answers without unnecessary elaboration.
• Focused Responses: It can more accurately address specific questions and follow-up points, reducing the need for extensive explanation.

3. Optimized Prompt Engineering

• Effective Prompt Responses: Enhanced prompt engineering means the AI can respond more directly and effectively to prompts, reducing wordiness.
• Adaptive Learning: Continuous feedback loops improve the model’s ability to streamline responses.

Correlation to Increased Intelligence

1. Efficiency in Information Processing

• Cognitive Efficiency: An intelligent model processes and synthesizes information more efficiently, resulting in concise and relevant outputs.
• Selective Detailing: Higher intelligence allows the model to determine which details are essential and which can be omitted without sacrificing clarity.

2. Improved Knowledge Representation

• Knowledge Compression: Advanced models represent knowledge more compactly, enabling them to convey the same amount of information in fewer words.
• Semantic Understanding: Better semantic understanding helps the model avoid verbose explanations by directly addressing the core of the queries.

3. Strategic Use of Language

• Conciseness as a Skill: A more intelligent model recognizes the value of conciseness in professional and academic settings, tailoring its responses accordingly.
• Effective Communication: Improved communication strategies allow the model to use language that conveys maximum information with minimal word count.

Practical Implications

1. User Efficiency

• Time-Saving: Users can derive the necessary information more quickly, enhancing productivity.
• Readability: Concise responses are easier to read and understand, improving the user experience.

2. Professional Application

• Legal and Technical Fields: In fields where clarity and precision are paramount, the ability to provide concise, accurate information is particularly valuable.

Conclusion

The increased conciseness observed in the OMNI version of ChatGPT is likely a result of its enhanced language processing capabilities, improved contextual awareness, and optimized prompt engineering. These improvements are correlated with the model’s increased intelligence, allowing it to process and deliver information more efficiently and effectively. This results in responses that are not only shorter but also more precise and relevant, aligning with the needs of professional users seeking clarity and succinctness in AI-generated outputs.

---

Ralph: Is it possible that training from one session to the next running the same custom GPT, Panel of AI Experts for Lawyers, could play a role in the increased conciseness? intelligence? or consistency?

OMNI: Potential Impact of Training Between Sessions on Conciseness, Intelligence, and Consistency: 1. Impact on Conciseness. Training from one session to the next can significantly contribute to increased conciseness. … 2. Impact on Intelligence. Continuous training can enhance the overall intelligence of the model. … 3. Impact on Consistency. Training across sessions can also improve consistency. …

Practical Implications. 1. Efficiency in Legal Practice. a. Time-Saving: More concise responses mean that legal professionals can obtain the information they need more quickly, enhancing productivity. b. Reliability: Increased consistency ensures that legal professionals can rely on the AI for standard and predictable responses, improving trust in the tool. 2. Enhanced AI-User Interaction. a. User Confidence: As the AI becomes more intelligent and consistent, users are likely to develop greater confidence in its capabilities. b. Adaptability: The model’s ability to learn from each session allows it to adapt to the specific needs and preferences of its users over time.

Conclusion
Training from one session to the next plays a crucial role in enhancing the conciseness, intelligence, and consistency of the ChatGPT model. Through reinforcement learning, supervised fine-tuning, and iterative improvement, the model can better understand and respond to legal queries, providing more efficient and reliable support to legal professionals. This continuous improvement process ensures that the AI remains a valuable tool in the legal domain, capable of delivering high-quality, concise, and consistent outputs.

Published on edrm.net  with permission. Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies for images per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.

Ralph Losey Copyright 2024 — All Rights Reserved. See applicable Disclaimer to the course and all other contents of this blog and related websites. Watch the full avatar disclaimer and privacy warning here.