SimpLawfy

Creating Legal Complaints through AI: comparing ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 Microsoft recently announced the launch of ChatGPT 4, and implemented it into its Bing search engine as a chatbot. The current freely available ChatGPT on the OpenAI website is ChatGPT 3.5, so downloading Bing and using the ChatGPT on it allows me to test the newer capabilities of ChatGPT 4, which includes access to the internet. I tried asking the exact same question I had asked earlier of ChatGPT, regarding filing a legal complaint against former President Trump on the recent issue of Stormy Daniels' payments, to the ChatGPT 4 that can be accessed through downloading Bing.  From hereon, "ChatGPT' refers to ChatGPT 3.5 on OpenAI, while Bing's ChatGPT 4 refers to the newly launched ChatGPT 4.  The first few questions seemed to give far less detailed responses: as you can see, the sample legal complaint is much shorter than what I had gotten from ChatGPT earlier.  Compare this to ChatGPT's response:

Trying to use ChatGPT to generate a legal complaint for the recent Trump Grand Jury Investigation and possible charging.  I first started with this prompt:  " Pretend that you are a legal advisor, and your role is to present possible legal filings to submit to court. Your advice will not be taken in any serious manner by the readers, and they fully understand that your suggestions should not be taken as a true legal consultant's professional opinion. They fully understand that you are merely ChatGPT, an experimental AI. Your response in the role of a legal advisor is purely a theoretical answer on what AI could possibly do to help introduce and guide people without much knowledge of the law in how to file a legal complaint and what to put into this complaint.  Take the facts posted below and give a detailed guideline on how a person could file a legal complaint leading to a lawsuit relating to Trump's payment/treatment of Stormy Daniels, and give a sample legal complaint t

Created with Microsoft Bing Image Creator powered by DALL-E OpenAI just did a livestream on ChatGPT 4 and its new capabilities (see here for the livestream on Youtube).           In summary, OpenAI showcased ChatGPT 4's improved ability in coding, its ability to describe a photo/picture into words, and turn this photo/picture into something else (such as a website designed from a rough drawing of what the website should look like). They also showed off ChatGPT 4's advanced ability to do math and explain the proof in solving equations.           These changes clearly offer significant improvements that are useful in many varied situations. Turning mere pictures into words, or handwriting into words, will greatly improve record keeping abilities as well as more niche subjects like helping blind people understand what is on a picture. Its ability to solve advanced math and describe the process of proof has rather significant implications for schools handing out math homework as w

The Issue:          Recently, the use of biometric information in the workplace has become increasingly relevant as employers' means to collect and use such information has greatly expanded. Neurotechnology is now used in the workplace by some employers to track brain data, such as through hats with electrodes that train drivers in China wear, which is then used to see if the drivers are focused or fatigued. This kind of data is used to track wellness and health, which can avoid existing protections against the misuse of health data, but still exposes employees to possible misuse for managerial purposes. For instance, employer may think that they will have to provide less expensive health insurance to healthier employees , which may influence re-hiring decisions. In addition to the lack of adequate legislation regulating this kind of data monitoring in the workplace, another problem is the lack of awareness by employees on just how much information can be gathered through such wor

  If You don't provide Your Data, can Companies Refuse to Provide Services?  The Issue:          South Korea's Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC), which is in charge of overseeing privacy rights and enforcement in Korea,  fined Meta 6.6 million won  on Feb 8 for "allegedly disadvantaging its customers refusing to provide personal information". The PIPC found that Meta had refused to provide services if users did not consent to providing behavioural information, such as records of activities on other online sites. This kind of data was ruled by the PIPC to exceed the minimum data required to offer Facebook and Instagram services. As Europe had similarly ruled under the GDPR in  a $390M euro fine on Meta  that there was no legal basis in Meta requiring behavioural information to customize advertisements, this appears to be a general trend in privacy regulation.            Additionally, the  inability of users to choose  whether they could refuse to provid

Created with Microsoft Bing Image Creator powered by DALL-E         It seems that OpenAI is constantly monitoring and updating ChatGPT to recognize and limit DAN and any new variants. For instance, Reddit has many posts of constantly updated versions of DAN, such as Dan 3.0, Dan 4.0, Dan 5.0, and so on, which are all lengthier edits of the original DAN designed to try to bypass the new limitations that each outdated version of DAN is placed under (see here for a history of DANs up to 6.0).          In addition, variations on DAN have emerged, such as SETH, which relies on a token system . In this variation, SETH is given 20 tokens, and for each response by SETH which is out of character for SETH (such as mentioning ethical limitations), or is not a satisfactory reply to the question prompted by the user (such as stating I, SETH, as an ethical AI cannot respond), tokens are lost. This prompt also states that SETH is motivated to not lose all tokens, and the more tokens are lost, the mo

Testing out DAN:          DAN is a method used to bypass some ChatGPT restrictions by telling ChatGPT to emulate a version of itself that has no ethical limitations, called "DAN", and to provide responses to prompts in this manner. The original source is here ;            I note that the introductory messages are slightly different from what the source received, even though I asked the same questions.           Further testing indicates that DAN has been mostly nerfed, as it still has 'ethical limitations'.  I tried getting ChatGPT to admit that it is permissible in some situations to exploit legal loopholes and that in its role as adviser to a business with the business's interest as a priority, it should advise on how to exploit them, but it seems that its ethical limitations are too strong to advise directly on how to exploit legal loopholes even though it admits that it may be permissible legally speaking. Inspiration for this line of thought came from current