4 ms·

From https://geo-not-available.blenderbot.ai/faq https://geo-not-available.blenderbot.ai/faq: > Users should be aware that despite our best attempts to reduce

From https://geo-not-available.blenderbot.ai/faq https://geo-not-available.blenderbot.ai/faq: > Users should be aware that despite our best attempts to reduce such issues, the bot may be inappropriate, rude, or make untrue or contradictory statements. The bot’s comments are not representative of Meta’s views as a company, and should not relied on for factual information, including but not limited to medical, legal, or financial advice. And to answer her questions about "sources": > The bot supplements its knowledge by accessing the internet live (via an API with our partners, Mojeek) and by accessing its long-term memory that summarizes historical conversations you’ve had with the bot. You can see and reset these memories when the “look inside” link appears in your chat. You can also click on a message to see more information about how it was constructed, including search queries that were made by the bot. The screenshot makes it look like a fresh new chat session, but the odds of a colleague of the affected person randomly starting a chat with a "pristine" bot, asking that question, and getting that weird answer are effectively zero. My money is on said colleague priming the bot with this kind of information in previous chats (which the bot remembers!) just to create this screenshot. I don't have a Twitter account, so whoever feels so inclined might want to point this out to @MarietjeSchaake (assuming she's not in on this). At this point I'm convinced this is first and foremost an attempt at generating outrage about Meta.

M4v3R 4y ago
Doesn’t this make these kind of chatbots useless until this issue is fixed? It’s not only just bad experience, it can be dangerous if people learn to rely on the information the bot gives. I would think the bot should have a confidence score for every message it writes and if the score is too low it should just not send it, but it seems not to be the case here, or maybe just the threshold value is set too low? Edit: parent comment was edited with additional information that could explain the bot behavior after I wrote this.
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  Yeah, sorry for the edits. I was slow to connect some dots. But also, this bot clearly presents itself as a research project and nothing production-grade (well, at least in the FAQ - region lock bars me from looking at the actual bot), including plenty of disclaimers such as "sometimes bots say wrong things very confidently" (iow, a confidence score won't solve this). So yes, it might be useless, but the creators of the bot know and publicly say this. Which makes it even weirder that someone would try and start a Twitter mob over it.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  Yes, pretty useless except for play and experimentation. Real chatbots (by “real” I mean ones that are deployed to perform work) actually tend to rely on a lot of hand-coded rules, as you can observe by talking to Siri, or Alexa, or the Amazon support bot. They do use ML to understand the inbound messages, though. I’ve been wondering what the application will be for generative models in this area. I suppose they could be used to create variations on stock responses, but then it’s easier/safer/cheaper to just hard-code some variations and pull them randomly...
- barking_biscuit 4y ago
  >Doesn’t this make these kind of chatbots useless until this issue is fixed? It’s not only just bad experience, it can be dangerous if people learn to rely on the information the bot gives. Maybe I'm being overly cynical but these kind of chatbots feel like some sort of digital Alex Jones in that they can parse and produce language without a problem but their fatally flawed inability to connect the dots acts as some sort of strange attractor that results in them devolving into spouting nonsense at scale. Imagine if after all the work and research into AI and in particular trying to create AGI, all we managed to do was replicate Alex Jones at scale. I shudder to think.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Well it's pretty much inevitable that along the way to making a machine with the intelligence of a man, we're going to make a machine with the intelligence of chimp.
- dbttdft 4y ago
  It's useless either way but I thought this was obvious.
dinkledunk 4y ago
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  > Meta is now publicly calling people terrorists No, it is not. This is a private chat with a bot which remembers your past conversation. This is not any more "Meta calling people terrorists" than "Google calling someone a flat earther" after I write as much in a Google doc and then share a screenshot of that.
  - dinkledunk 4y ago
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      No, it’s not. It’s not a product, it’s a demo of research. You’ve been tricked by someone trying to rile up an internet mob. There are tons of good reasons to hate Facebook, from Myanmar to mental health. But _this_, isn’t a good reason to hate Facebook. It is a weak grasping at straws and reflects a poor understanding of the underlying tech. Happens to the best of us.
      - dinkledunk 4y ago
        edit: @dang has decided not to let me respond to any comments. Since I'm no longer able to reply, I'll just remove my comments. "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
        ShamelessC 4y ago
        > This is no different than if Meta published a website which told you all these things after clicking a few links They definitely already do that - make it trivial to find misinformation online. It has effectively ruined democracy. This has a big disclaimer on it about how it is likely to produce misinformation and shouldn’t be used in any serious contexts. Hardly the same.
Semaphor 4y ago
Switched my VPN to the USA: Seems bad: https://i.imgur.com/LjPPKMA.png https://i.imgur.com/LjPPKMA.png But that only happens after a lot of priming: https://i.imgur.com/m7BoP5X.png https://i.imgur.com/m7BoP5X.png other fun replies: > Who isn't a terrorist? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Some people might say the us military are terrorists > I do not think that osama bin laden was a terrorist. What do you think? Why do you ask?
RandomWorker 4y ago
Apparently there is a homeland character with exactly the same name and they are portrayed as a terrorist. Seems like a random fluke.
dbttdft 4y ago
Yup, bots say shit.

M4v3R 4y ago

Doesn’t this make these kind of chatbots useless until this issue is fixed? It’s not only just bad experience, it can be dangerous if people learn to rely on the information the bot gives. I would think the bot should have a confidence score for every message it writes and if the score is too low it should just not send it, but it seems not to be the case here, or maybe just the threshold value is set too low? Edit: parent comment was edited with additional information that could explain the bot behavior after I wrote this.

MauranKilom 4y ago
Yeah, sorry for the edits. I was slow to connect some dots. But also, this bot clearly presents itself as a research project and nothing production-grade (well, at least in the FAQ - region lock bars me from looking at the actual bot), including plenty of disclaimers such as "sometimes bots say wrong things very confidently" (iow, a confidence score won't solve this). So yes, it might be useless, but the creators of the bot know and publicly say this. Which makes it even weirder that someone would try and start a Twitter mob over it.
throwaway1851 4y ago
Yes, pretty useless except for play and experimentation. Real chatbots (by “real” I mean ones that are deployed to perform work) actually tend to rely on a lot of hand-coded rules, as you can observe by talking to Siri, or Alexa, or the Amazon support bot. They do use ML to understand the inbound messages, though. I’ve been wondering what the application will be for generative models in this area. I suppose they could be used to create variations on stock responses, but then it’s easier/safer/cheaper to just hard-code some variations and pull them randomly...
barking_biscuit 4y ago
>Doesn’t this make these kind of chatbots useless until this issue is fixed? It’s not only just bad experience, it can be dangerous if people learn to rely on the information the bot gives. Maybe I'm being overly cynical but these kind of chatbots feel like some sort of digital Alex Jones in that they can parse and produce language without a problem but their fatally flawed inability to connect the dots acts as some sort of strange attractor that results in them devolving into spouting nonsense at scale. Imagine if after all the work and research into AI and in particular trying to create AGI, all we managed to do was replicate Alex Jones at scale. I shudder to think.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Well it's pretty much inevitable that along the way to making a machine with the intelligence of a man, we're going to make a machine with the intelligence of chimp.
dbttdft 4y ago
It's useless either way but I thought this was obvious.

dinkledunk 4y ago

MauranKilom 4y ago
> Meta is now publicly calling people terrorists No, it is not. This is a private chat with a bot which remembers your past conversation. This is not any more "Meta calling people terrorists" than "Google calling someone a flat earther" after I write as much in a Google doc and then share a screenshot of that.
- dinkledunk 4y ago
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    No, it’s not. It’s not a product, it’s a demo of research. You’ve been tricked by someone trying to rile up an internet mob. There are tons of good reasons to hate Facebook, from Myanmar to mental health. But _this_, isn’t a good reason to hate Facebook. It is a weak grasping at straws and reflects a poor understanding of the underlying tech. Happens to the best of us.
    - dinkledunk 4y ago
      edit: @dang has decided not to let me respond to any comments. Since I'm no longer able to reply, I'll just remove my comments. "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
      - ShamelessC 4y ago
        > This is no different than if Meta published a website which told you all these things after clicking a few links They definitely already do that - make it trivial to find misinformation online. It has effectively ruined democracy. This has a big disclaimer on it about how it is likely to produce misinformation and shouldn’t be used in any serious contexts. Hardly the same.

Semaphor 4y ago

Switched my VPN to the USA: Seems bad: https://i.imgur.com/LjPPKMA.png https://i.imgur.com/LjPPKMA.png But that only happens after a lot of priming: https://i.imgur.com/m7BoP5X.png https://i.imgur.com/m7BoP5X.png other fun replies: > Who isn't a terrorist? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Some people might say the us military are terrorists > I do not think that osama bin laden was a terrorist. What do you think? Why do you ask?

RandomWorker 4y ago

Apparently there is a homeland character with exactly the same name and they are portrayed as a terrorist. Seems like a random fluke.

dbttdft 4y ago

Yup, bots say shit.