this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
18 points (87.5% liked)

Technology

58942 readers
3395 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey everyone, I've been parsing through the Huggingface website and am having a bit of trouble picking out an LLM inference to help me parse through legal documents. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to understand my rights and how to search for answers to legal questions with concrete answers using an inference.

I have heard a multitude of things around Llama being a privacy nightmare and something about Gerganov ML files? GGMU is also a nebulous term to me and I understand the basics about how a model is trained and validated, but not how to pick one for personal use that isn't GPT-4.

Any suggestions or things to add on to the discussion?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think an LLM+Chroma is probably as good as it gets, and who knows, it might work. Just I'd be very careful of getting screwed by the process. As I'm sure you know LLMs are right at that inflection point where they're good enough to seem trustworthy but they can still completely malfunction (and they tend to do so in ways that are actually really difficult to spot because they seem perfectly plausible.)

Yeah the Legal Eagle video was hilarious. The guy used GPT-4 to make his legal briefs, then when it hallucinated cases he lied to the judge and said he'd researched them and the cases existed, then when faced with the clearly obvious fact that they didn't, he finally came clean but still sort of tried to weasel out of responsibility for the whole thing and the judge quite rightly tore him a new one. And, I have some vague memory of it being discovered that GPT had basically tried to tell him it wasn't qualified to make his legal briefs and he insisted to it that it needed to do it anyway. It was just an absolute casserole from start to finish.