> While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle
Minor quibble: I think the majority of bias would creep in when training, not necessarily during writing the code. If trained on biased data you'll get biased results. RLHF by it's nature is likely to introduce bias, but maybe bias most are ok with, but maybe not lawyers. Later, while actually serving responses, it's possible that OpenAI/others introduce checks for certain things (e.g. does the input contain the word 'gun'? If so refuse to answer) that are also sources of bias. In theory you could also taint the responses by changing the prompt, but that seems unlikely.
All this just to say that I think the judge is right to do this, his bias argument is a bit of a miss.
Minor quibble: I think the majority of bias would creep in when training, not necessarily during writing the code. If trained on biased data you'll get biased results. RLHF by it's nature is likely to introduce bias, but maybe bias most are ok with, but maybe not lawyers. Later, while actually serving responses, it's possible that OpenAI/others introduce checks for certain things (e.g. does the input contain the word 'gun'? If so refuse to answer) that are also sources of bias. In theory you could also taint the responses by changing the prompt, but that seems unlikely.
All this just to say that I think the judge is right to do this, his bias argument is a bit of a miss.