These chat bots are generative. Yes, they generate fake laws and fake cases and fake outcomes. That’s how they work. Expecting anything else out of something designed to create is pointless and a waste of time. They aren’t designed to not lie. That’s so well established at this point I think the people doing this research on fucking chatGPT for law questions are either mooching funding just to keep a job or are bored.
If they trained a LLM on nothing but a dictionary, law books, and fed it case outcomes, it would probably be a reasonable tool for law offices. Make sure it only outputs indexes to real cases and real laws, and make sure that law offices have to legally follow up on and verify these things but I see this as an actual use case for these types of bots.
There still is a lot of nuance involved, especially for a layman who wouldn’t even begin to understand the terminology required to start the search, so a human lawyer would/should still be involved, but these tools would absolutely help speed up the judicial system and probably lower costs.
I think the most interesting finding in this study is the following:
The models also suffered from “contra-factual bias": They were likely to believe a false premise embedded in a user’s question, acting in a “sycophantic” way to reinforce the user’s mistake.
Which when you think about how language models work, makes a lot of sense. It’s drawing upon trained data sets that match the question being asked. It’s easy to lead it to respond a certain way, because people who talk pro/con certain issues will often use specific kinds of language (such as dog whistles in political issues).
I had a colleague perform a similar experiment on ChatGPT 3. He’s ecoanxious and was noticing how the model was getting gloomier and gloomier in accordance with him, so he tried something. Basically he asked something like “Why is (overpopulated specie) going instinct in (location)?” The model went on to list existential threats to a specie that is everything but endangered. Basically it naively gobbled the loaded question.
I had a realization recently. These things are like the reverse of the mythical Cassandra: no one can ever be sure that their information is correct, but everyone trusts what they say.
They might have a case if yuzu is actually decrypting switch software. That would be stupid of the developers, though. I would assume that they require you to provide decrypted games.
That’s basically the only leg nintendo has to stand on here, but nintendo can out lawyer you into the poor house regardless.
AFAIK rooted Switch consoles are used to decrypt the games and Yuzu just tries to execute whatever nonencrypted Switch binary. Unless Nintendo can prove that either the Yuzu developers themselves are behind ripping commercial Switch games or directly colluded with the rippers, they’d have a hard time to actually win. That said, regular people with normal income levels will probably just sign everything because a prolonged lawsuit is about just bankrupting them, not being ruled the win by the judge.
yuzu starts with the error “Missing Derivation Components”
yuzu requires console keys to play your games. Please follow our Quickstart Guide to dump these keys and system files from your Nintendo Switch.
Their guide also talks about dumping games from your console so I’m not sure how far it goes, but if they want console keys they are likely decrypting something
Yuzu doesn’t do any encryption breaking. The user is meant to use their Switch to dump their keys, which are legally owned by the user. Then it uses those legal keys to decrypt the ROMs by the exact normal method that the Switch itself uses. They were going based on precedent legal rulings about console emulation. Copying the decryption keys and making copies of the software for archival purposes have both been previously ruled to be perfectly legal for the enduser and don’t constitute piracy. This suit will challenge that notion.
Then it uses those legal keys to decrypt the ROMs by the exact normal method that the Switch itself uses
this is the part where they circumvent the copyright protection, even if you do it “the same way” it’s still not authorized, the DMCA is fairly broad about this stuff, one of the reasons it’s so bad
I’ve had one for years, waiting for when Nintendo dropped support. I’m not gonna give them any more money as far as the Switch is concerned, so no reason not to go for it now. A project for this weekend, maybe.
Edit: I am dumb, of course the source code is out there. I have visited this repository a thousand times but my monkey brain can’t remember what I ate for breakfast.
Everyone download the hell out of it and never let this die.
~ ~ ~
If it isn’t already open source, Yuzu team needs to get that shiz open source post-haste. Let’s get that code absolutely everywhere.
When that popular manga app Tachiyomi got legal bonked, the bajillion forks of it kept some semblance of the original going.
I know there’s money to be made and something like an emulator is considerably more complex than a book reading app/scraper, but it would at least give the project a chance of not dying forever.
there are already 3rd party repositories that come from yuzu. e.g Yuzu Pineapple is a repository that autocompiles the source code that yuzu puts out so that you dont have to sub to get early access builds prebuilt.
The legality of the emulation itself has long been established, but I’ve been concerned for a while that illegal DRM circumvention of the games themselves has been a viable legal avenue. Under the DMCA, even the process to dump your own legally-licensed games has arguably been in a legal grey area for a while now, with how they are locked down. If any method to playing the games become illegal, any unauthorized emulation of games becomes de facto illegal.
I’d cite legal precedent here, but there’s been a substantial right-wing, pro-corporate shift in American courts over time. Who knows how this will go.
Yet another reason I never buy anything from Nintendo. Fuck those fucks. On average only like 2 Nintendo games per console generation are ever any good anyway. They should be held responsible for all the e-waste they generate.
Legal questions are very case sensitive, no pun intended. It’s like asking an extremely specific programming implementation question. LLMs don’t do very well with those types of prompts because the narrower the focus, the less of its training data applies to it and the more likely it’ll just straight up hallucinate. And they don’t yet have the nuance necessary to determine that an area of case law may not be settled and is in a legal grey area.
news.bloomberglaw.com
Top