4 ms·

> You'd think the experience of ChatGPT would have taught them that the average person isn't blindly worshipping the output of LLMs They aren't wrong though. I

by amf12 4y ago

> You'd think the experience of ChatGPT would have taught them that the average person isn't blindly worshipping the output of LLMs They aren't wrong though. Imagine Google had released LLM based chatbot first. There'd be a lot of negative coverage when (not just if) things went wrong: biases, inaccuracy, misinformation, dangerous information. With Google, people would expect to see "correct" information, and for it to not be biased, and safe. for example, imagine if Google's bot give the recipe to make meth [1]. Every big publisher would be talking about dangers of AI, and how Google is being irresponsible. It's not just Google, you could replace Google with Microsoft and it would still apply. With ChatGPT, it is a beta service, so users understand it can be wrong. Turn it into a product from another company and it becomes a liability issue. [1] https://techreport.com/software/3488894/chatgpt-breaks-bad-and-teaches-us-how-to-make-meth/ https://techreport.com/software/3488894/chatgpt-breaks-bad-a...

st00 4y ago
It seems as though you've conflated the management of perception with the practice of ethical research. Google is very rich and that enables them to control resources and build things that make them richer. They're in positive feedback loop, and their job is to protect their advantage. Yep, sometimes capitalism gets out of hand. It's the government's job (on behalf of their citizens) to apply the brakes, and Google has become pretty skilled at managing perceptions to avoid the brakes and maintain their advantage. This document is one part of their strategy. So, apologizing for Google on the grounds of "they'd get bad press if they shared their toys" rings a bit hollow. They've dressed up self interest as social responsibility, and exploited this weird, radical left wing moment of ours to their advantage.

by amf12 4y ago

st00 4y ago

It seems as though you've conflated the management of perception with the practice of ethical research. Google is very rich and that enables them to control resources and build things that make them richer. They're in positive feedback loop, and their job is to protect their advantage. Yep, sometimes capitalism gets out of hand. It's the government's job (on behalf of their citizens) to apply the brakes, and Google has become pretty skilled at managing perceptions to avoid the brakes and maintain their advantage. This document is one part of their strategy. So, apologizing for Google on the grounds of "they'd get bad press if they shared their toys" rings a bit hollow. They've dressed up self interest as social responsibility, and exploited this weird, radical left wing moment of ours to their advantage.