Yep- another emerging area of ai interest is in investing. Stock market- ai can very quickly spot emerging prospects, spot stocks that are losing or gaining or possibly about to based o n certain criteria and inputs- Will it put stock brokers and investment firms out of business? Or severely limit their usefulness once fol,s figure out how to harness the power of ai investing advice a d suggestions? Will there be suits agaisnt ai companies if folks lose their shirts using it? How Will ai protect itself from suits going forward? Lots of questions. I note that ai is already being used in areas like court cases, and questions about the lega,ity of it being used for defense is being g called into question.
A court case where a man tried to use an ai figure to “stand in for him” because “he was too nervous stand before a judge” was just recently in the news, and the judge threw a fit over it. Not sure how the case came out thouhg. But I think,it was kinda bri.liant atte pt to stretch the boundaries and test the waters- the ai in the case was basically an avatar onscreen, an I think was using ai to answer questions about the case instead of the guy himself onscreen. The judge however flipped out over it, claiming it was “disrespectful”- the story wax on Newsmax the other night-
If AIs are doing the prediction and trading, how soon will they detach from any real economic data and just try to predict how rival AIs will react? Try faster and faster AIs to get inside the other AIs’ OODA loops.
That situation involved a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where attorneys representing a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit submitted a legal brief containing citations to six non-existent cases.
These fictitious cases were generated by ChatGPT, which the attorneys used for legal research without verifying the accuracy of the information provided.
The court discovered the issue when defendant's legal team was unable to locate the cited cases and brought this to the court's attention.
Upon investigation, it was revealed that the attorneys had relied on ChatGPT's output without conducting proper due diligence.
As a result, the judge sanctioned the attorneys and their law firm, imposing a fine of $5,000 for submitting false information to the court.
The judge said that he was well aware of the effective use of AI in the practice of law but expected lawyers to verify AI-generated content, especially in legal proceedings where accuracy is paramount. The issue was not the use of AI per se, but the failure to exercise professional responsibility in reviewing and confirming the validity of the information before submission.