And on top of that - they either genuinely believe that "AI is finally here", and systems like ChatGPT are true oracles. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, right?
A somewhat recent stand out example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings
These problems with ChatGPT sound like it's going to turbo charge events like this.
Right. People are the problem, not technology. Which is why crippling the technology is so foolish.
ChatGPT has a long list of warnings, caveats, instructions, etc. Before you get to submit anything.
Like T&Cs.
If you don’t read them, yes, that’s on you.
They may be unreasonable. But so were you when you decided they weren’t worth reading.
This is in addition to all of the sensationalist headlines all over the place that talk about how unreliable the answers can be. Or rather those are in addition. They came second. After a lot of people didn’t read, or disregarded what they read.
Edit: and could people stop anthropomorphizing the language model? It can’t accuse anyone of anything. That’s sensationalist garbage.
That’s little comfort for anyone whom ChatGPT falsely accuses of sexual harassment.
The person who skips the warnings isn’t the person who’s harmed.
It predicts text. Sometimes inaccurately. That’s what those silly words are trying to indicate. It is why they are worth reading. There’s even a prompt to make sure the user reads it.
(Humans lie.)
What the human then does with the output may resemble an accusation, or may even be one.
I wonder if law professors take the time to read those silly words… I bet they do. All the more curious.
Practically speaking, it makes no difference.
Heh Heh Heh
That statement pretty much sums up the current situation, which seems to now be at the "tell it to the judge" point. :)
At least that's how I'm imagining the line of reasoning behind this point of view goes.
That’s the same argument as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It pretends nothing is wrong, or that if it were that would be nothing we could do. None of those is true or a reason to not have a conversation.
The key is - one has assume there will always be bad actors, and weigh potential outcomes of various policies with that assumption in mind. That assumption is how computer security has come such a long way in the last 20 years.
In the case of guns, assuming bad actors means one cannot assume criminals will follow gun laws, but that manufacturers, distributors, and resellers will (for the most part).
Agreed. And we have to discuss those policies, which is what we’re doing now.
> Which is not to say the argument is necessarily a bad one.
Which is why I disagree here. The argument to “ignore the thing itself because people are the problem” ignores the thing ultimately affects the people.
> It pretends nothing is wrong,
Not that one
> or that if it were that would be nothing we could do.
Also not that one. How about “this isn’t addressing the issue,” which is stated as… people?
Rather - as to whether the legal system holds those accountable (be it the creators of the technology, or those who "misuse" it) liable for the consequences of their actions.
Consequences of what action?
And yes, it has already been crippled in an effort to correct bias and to protect people from themselves.
For hallucinations marketed and sold as a reliable source of information - yes.
Consequences of what action?
For what they do to others on the basis of the above.
Since that’s the basis of whatever this is.
OpenAI for example, whose marketing materials present it as exactly that. For example:
You essentially have the knowledge of the most knowledgeable person in Wealth Management—instantly”, McMillan adds. “Think of it as having our Chief Investment Strategist, Chief Global Economist, Global Equities Strategist, and every other analyst around the globe on call for every advisor, every day. We believe that is a transformative capability for our company.
https://openai.com/customer-stories/morgan-stanley
That's not OpenAI talking about ChatGPT, the public facing product. It's an executive at Morgan Stanley talking about an internal chat tool they're building based on embeddings search, which does, in fact produce reliable information, because it's being used to retrieve non-AI-generated content.
It's absolutely wild to claim that they're trying to use this to indicate that the general use chatbot version of ChatGPT is "credible, authoritative and reliable" when every user is shown a full screen message to the contrary upon signup, and a disclaimer to the contrary on every single chat. For that matter, even if you just straight up ask ChatGPT if it's a reliable source, they've specifically trained it to tell you that it's not.
At any rate, it kind of seems like your argument would apply to any marketing of ChatGPT as a useful product. It sounds like this is a legitimate use case for the technology that is being discussed in accurate terms. I’m not sure what else you want from them.
That's why it isn't "wild" at all for them to intentionally put out messaging that touts their product as authoritative and trustworthy - while at the same time presenting ToS boilerplate and other disclaimers that, of course, say the exact opposite. It is in fact the precise intent of this messaging to play with the users' heads in this way.
It kind of seems like your argument would apply to any marketing of ChatGPT as a useful product.
No - just marketing that disingenuously implies that, at the end of the day - it's still a reliable and trustworthy source of information. On which to base decisions worth billions and billions of dollars, no less.
We can move the goalposts to T&Cs being a problem, but that’s even further from AI being the problem.
Wasn’t this supposed to be about the dangers of AI? This sounds, again, still, like the dangers of humans. With a new tool.
But that’s not ChatGPT.
That’s OpenAI.
I would reckon that to the good (if not the vast) majority of those who will see their jobs either yanked away from them entirely, or otherwise negatively perturbed in some significant way by this technology; or who are acutely affected by the toxic content it will just as inevitably produce -- this distinction will be entirely moot.
Have you read the disclaimers? Or are you treating ChatGPT like an unlocked firearm?
Yeah, I’ve read the legal language on the ChatGPT site. I’ve got no worry about an unlocked firearm but I treat ChatGPT like a disruptive technology that will likely cause a great deal of damage when it is used unwisely.
I’m not sure what bearing that has on whether a disclaimer can effectively protect Microsoft et al. from liability here, but I hope you’re about to enlighten me.