| ▲ | donatj 2 days ago |
| $10,000? That's a slap on the wrist. I don't say this lightly, this should have been jail time for someone. You're making a mockery of our most sacred institutions. |
|
| ▲ | hollerith 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >jail time Surely it would suffice to eject him from the California bar -- or suspend him from it for a time. |
| |
| ▲ | lokar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I would revoke his license and ban him for a few years. After that allow him to retake all the exams to get licensed again if he wants to. |
|
|
| ▲ | freejazz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your response seems a bit over the top especially considering it is a civil case |
|
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| for first offenses for something like this you'd suggest jail time? hope you find excuses to skip your next jury summons. however, it is typical in jury selection to be asked by the defense if you'd be able to agree with a minimum sentence while the prosecutors like to ask if you'd be able to agree to the maximum. personally was asked if I could agree to 99 years for someone's first offense of GTA. I said no, and was dismissed. Sounds like you'd have said yes. |
| |
| ▲ | smsm42 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wait why do they ask about a sentence? In the US at least juries don't set sentences, judges do. | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For someone who had to attend 6+ years of school and had to pass a professional licensing exam with ethics questions? Yes, I do. $10,000 is one week of billable hours at $250/hr. Do you think a Civil Engineer (PE) should be held liable if they vibe engineered a bridge using an LLM without reviewing the output? For this hypothetical, let’s assume an inspector caught the issue before the bridge was in use, but it would’ve collapsed had the inspector not noticed. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No single civil engineer designs a bridge though now do they? So the premise of your retort is just way off here. No bridge plan is made without reviews after one person presses print on the plotter. Even the construction company hired to build the bridge will review the plans before they break ground. If someone is building a bridge on their private property and hires their nephew, that's on them. An actual civil project, nope, I reject your premise outright. | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I would wager that plenty of bridges are designed by a single engineer, most bridges are not massive 8-lane highway bridges but small bridges in municipalities. A single person can design a building, why not a bridge? P.S. I sell and run commercial construction work | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So you’re saying when you run those jobs or the team you sell the job to have no one that’s ever built anything before to see plans and ask questions? So if I accept the premise that a single person designed a bridge that that’s all that would be done to ensure it meets the specifications? You’re saying that nobody would ever review the plans? Nobody would say the bolts being used are too small for purpose, or any number of things that could pop up? The concrete pads are insufficient? The steel I-beams are too thin? Someone would just take the plans exactly as listed, purchase the material as listed, and not one question ever would be raised? I would never trust a construction team that didn’t raise questions if not even to see if they themselves could skimp on material to pocket the difference. | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman a day ago | parent [-] | | You raise a number of good points, my example wasn’t as strong as I thought. I was attempting to contrive a scenario that was similar to a lawyer using an LLM and not reviewing the output, the civil engineering example isn’t a great due to the issues you raised. > Someone would just take the plans exactly as listed, purchase the material as listed, and not one question ever would be raised? I would never trust a construction team that didn’t raise questions if not even to see if they themselves could skimp on material to pocket the difference. You’re right, the contractor would likely catch the design issues if there were any, and possibly before that in the plan review/permitting process if the AHJ is on the ball. I work in the electrical trade and I (and my electricians) find and correct errors frequently in engineered plans. We tell the engineer if it costs us more money to attempt to get a contract change order, but we keep it to ourselves if we can do it safely for cheaper. A common scenario I run into is a design with oversized feeders where you can use a smaller wire and still meet code, we just pull the smaller conductors and pocket the difference (assuming you bid the project using the larger wire size) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Brusco_RF 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Jail time? Thats a slap on the wrist. lets summarily execute him and his extended family two generations up and down |
| |
| ▲ | ryoshoe 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What we need is a return to the good old days of the Nine Familial Exterminations |
|
|
| ▲ | Analemma_ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's something grimly hilarious about knee-jerk demands for jail time for [other profession] for using AI, when a bunch of us here are eagerly adopting it into our own workflows as fast as we can. Why jail time for lawyers who use Chat-GPT, but not programmers? Are we that unimportant compared to the actual useful members of society, whose work actually has to be held to standards? I don't think you meant it this way, but it feels like a frank admission that what we do has no value, and so compared to other people who have to be correct, it's fine for us to slather on the slop. |
| |
| ▲ | dns_snek 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not just for "using AI", it's for professional misconduct including negligence. There should be a system where software developers are held personally responsible for various offenses, e.g. helping their employers break laws, but there also need to be legal protections that allow us to refuse such work without facing repercussions. | |
| ▲ | rpdillon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The jail time wouldn't be for using AI. It would be for submitting a document to the court that would have gotten an F in any law school. Sort of like recklessly vibe coding and pushing to prod. The cardinal rule with AI is that we should all be free to use it, but we're still equally responsible for the output we produce, regardless of the tooling we use to get there. I think that applies equally across professions. | |
| ▲ | pkaye 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Why jail time for lawyers who use Chat-GPT, but not programmers? Are we that unimportant compared to the actual useful members of society, whose work actually has to be held to standards? Programmers generally don't need a degree or license to work. Anyone can become a programmer after a few weeks of work. There are no exams to pass unlike doctors or lawyers. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | All the more reason to have insanely harsh punishments! In absence of mitigations like laws and exams, it makes more important to use criminal and civil law to punish bad programmers. | | | |
| ▲ | dingnuts 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | dingnuts 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > when a bunch of us here are eagerly adopting it into our own workflows as fast as we can. speak for yourself. some of us are ready to retire and/or looking for parts of the field where code generation is verboten, for various reasons. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | mushroomba 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Describing the legal system as sacred is surprising to me, it's not what I would think about it. What do you understand sacred to be, and why would you include the legal system in that category? |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sacred: regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual. |
|
