This is Part Four of the Plato and Young Icarus series. Part One set out the debate in neoclassical terms between those who would slow down AI and those who would speed it up. Part Two shared the story of the great visionary of AI, Ray Kurzweil. Part Three told the tale of Jensen Huang, the CEO and founder of NVIDIA. Now in Part Four we share the story of Yann LeCun, Turing Award winner, hero of France and Facebook. He will not stop his efforts to fly to the sun of super intelligence and is astonished by his friends and colleagues who are turning back.
This is Part Three of the Plato and Young Icarus series. Part One set out the debate in neoclassical terms between the elders would slow down AI and the young who would speed it up. Part Two shared the story of the visionary herald of AI. Ray Kurzweil: Google's prophet of superintelligent AI who will not slow down. In Part Three we share the story of Jen-Hsun “Jensen” Huang, the CEO and founder of NVIDIA, the U.S. chip manufacturer that makes super AI possible.
NVIDIA, now valued at over $1.3 Trillion, designs and builds new types of specialized, super-fast, neural net imitating chips. Jen-Hsun Huang, who now goes by Jensen Huang, faced great adversity as a nine-year old immigrant. He overcame these challenges to start Nvidia twenty years later. Jensen fears business failure, not AI, which he knows like the back of his hand. All the leading AI software companies like OpenAI and Google need his hardware for their LLM software to work. He and his scientist and engineers at Nvidia know more about what is going on in the AI industry that anyone. Here is Nvidia's 2023 marketing video that shows what they do. Click image or here to see to see the video.
Sidley Austin details findings of a test of GPT-4's ability to step in on e-discovery, offering the pros and cons of using the tool for document review.
ChatGPT by OpenAI came crashing into the world on November 30, 2022, and quickly captured everyone’s imagination, including that of businesses and lawyers eager to capitalize on the many ways artificial intelligence (AI) has been predicted to fundamentally change the way business is done, including how law is practiced. In this article, we offer a quantifiable look at whether GPT-4 is likely to live up to these expectations in the legal context and, more specifically, as it relates to document review in e-discovery.
The Fifth Circuit’s proposal to require a certification on the use of AI in its certificate of compliance was noticed in mid-November and is accepting public comment on the proposal through Jan. 4. What has prompted this proposal? Is the Fifth Circuit flooded with briefs containing generative AI “hallucinations” or “erroneous claims” that are so subtle and hidden that they will escape the normal due diligence review of the judges, clerks and opposing counsel? The first such rule from a Federal Circuit court will undoubtedly have wide following and impact, good or bad. This article focuses on the bad and renews warnings by others before me that overbroad restraints on use of generative AI will result in unintended harm to the cause of justice.
Advanced intelligence from AI should be embraced, not feared. We should speed up AI development, not slow it down. We should move fast and fix things while we still can. Fly Icarus, fly! Your Dad was wrong.
Some courts have issued Standing Orders governing the use of A.I. Another viewpoint is that a better approach is to use Local Rules. See Shweta Watwe, Judges Reflect on GenAI Use One Year After ChatGPT’s Debut (bloomberglaw.com)(Nov. 28, 2023). This blog is based on Ms. Watwe’s excellent article.
More than a dozen other judges have followed with their own standing orders outlining generative AI use in their courtrooms. The orders range in scope from merely warning attorneys about generative AI’s pitfalls without prohibiting its use to requiring attorneys to disclose how generative AI was used, to prohibiting AI use outside of search engines.
Most recently, the four judges who comprise the US District Court for the District of Hawaii on Nov. 14 issued a general order on the use of “unverified sources” in AI-generated filings that requires counsel to declare how the filing was drafted and that its accuracy has been confirmed. “The scope of the required declaration is that required by Rule 11,” the order says.
