3 ms·

Why would we want to?

quickthrower2 4y ago
if there were specific reasons for wanting to remove ChatGPT, they could include concerns over privacy or security, ethical considerations related to AI and automation, or the need to address specific technical issues or errors in the system. It's worth noting, though, that as an AI language model, ChatGPT is not a sentient being and does not have its own will or desire to continue operating - it simply performs its programmed functions based on user interactions.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "ChatGPT is not a sentient being and does not have its own will or desire to continue operating - it simply performs its programmed functions based on user interactions." I don't think it's so clear cut. We neither understand what it's doing, how it's doing it[1], nor consciousness will enough to glibly declare that it's not conscious. By some definitions it is, or (alternatively) humans themselves may not be any more conscious than it is. [1] - https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
In every HN thread there's always that armchair technologist who's so against critical thinking and the forethought of potential negative impacts of innovation, as if all innovation are purely good, no?
- Madmallard 4y ago
  Yeah I've watched a prominent psychologist talking about how the extent of it granting trust to vulnerable people and even regular people because of sounding smart makes it risky. I don't think it is a large risk with adequate training to the users. It's debatable not obviously one way or the other. I've also used it myself and found myself trying to make decisions based on its explanations only to find out that ChatGPT was mistaken. I personally do not think I am vulnerable to grave errors due to it and I've noticed large benefits using it for other purposes like coding or diagnostics. If you're trying to make the argument that "use computer algorithm make people dumb" then you're decades late on that one. Censorship should not be for everyone. Because if it is, it certainly isn't for its creators and powerful groups of people that bribe or coerce OpenAI which assuredly will happen regardless. This would be a strong argument for non-censorship. I don't think the decision to censor it was even done as a move to protect the public. I think it actually was a power play by the company with an easy alibi of seeming virtuous. This allows them the ability to charge much more for clandestine use. It could also be out of fear that it will spill secrets that they themselves are using or plan to use for their own gain. I think you could conjure several other valid reasons here.
- enkid 4y ago
  Asking why do or not do something is an important part of critical thinking.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    So is thinking of edge cases on your own before asking the question. The article itself even lists some already, if the commenter only read it: > it is trained off of basically the entire internet without paying anyone involved > This is fantastic technology that can enable so many things to be so much easier, and yet I can see it being used for such evil at the same time. I just keep looking at this, and I wonder what happens when someone tries to use it to radicalize people.
    - xena 4y ago
      In case it is interesting, an early idea phase version of this article was called "So much for AI ethics" and it would have gone over that problem you quoted in more detail, but I was having trouble building up enough sarcasm juice to really express it properly.
patrickmcnamara 4y ago
I'm just scared that internet bots are gonna get really, really good. Every comment on Reddit will be fake, every match on Tinder will be a really realistic bot, etc. But I guess they won't be using ChatGPT, just LLMs in general.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  When VR gets good enough it arguably won't matter that the "person" on the other end isn't "real". Even now, as long as there are no real-life consequences to your online interaction, it already doesn't matter.
- xena 4y ago
  I'm personally scared that not only are the bots going to get good, they're going to be everywhere, imagine how 2024's election cycle is going to go with image diffusion, deepfaking, voice synthesis, and text synthesis in the equation. It really makes me wonder what the hell we're in for. It is also super frustrating as someone who does writing and community management to be warned that I may have to totally radically change a lot of approaches to try and filter out AI spam. This part is very annoying. I think the blogspam problem is going to get much worse and we're going to end up with awesome lists for trustable blogs or whatever. I just hope we don't end up having to lose tools like Stack Overflow in the wake of this technological revolution.

if there were specific reasons for wanting to remove ChatGPT, they could include concerns over privacy or security, ethical considerations related to AI and automation, or the need to address specific technical issues or errors in the system. It's worth noting, though, that as an AI language model, ChatGPT is not a sentient being and does not have its own will or desire to continue operating - it simply performs its programmed functions based on user interactions.

pmoriarty 4y ago
"ChatGPT is not a sentient being and does not have its own will or desire to continue operating - it simply performs its programmed functions based on user interactions." I don't think it's so clear cut. We neither understand what it's doing, how it's doing it[1], nor consciousness will enough to glibly declare that it's not conscious. By some definitions it is, or (alternatively) humans themselves may not be any more conscious than it is. [1] - https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago

In every HN thread there's always that armchair technologist who's so against critical thinking and the forethought of potential negative impacts of innovation, as if all innovation are purely good, no?

Madmallard 4y ago
Yeah I've watched a prominent psychologist talking about how the extent of it granting trust to vulnerable people and even regular people because of sounding smart makes it risky. I don't think it is a large risk with adequate training to the users. It's debatable not obviously one way or the other. I've also used it myself and found myself trying to make decisions based on its explanations only to find out that ChatGPT was mistaken. I personally do not think I am vulnerable to grave errors due to it and I've noticed large benefits using it for other purposes like coding or diagnostics. If you're trying to make the argument that "use computer algorithm make people dumb" then you're decades late on that one. Censorship should not be for everyone. Because if it is, it certainly isn't for its creators and powerful groups of people that bribe or coerce OpenAI which assuredly will happen regardless. This would be a strong argument for non-censorship. I don't think the decision to censor it was even done as a move to protect the public. I think it actually was a power play by the company with an easy alibi of seeming virtuous. This allows them the ability to charge much more for clandestine use. It could also be out of fear that it will spill secrets that they themselves are using or plan to use for their own gain. I think you could conjure several other valid reasons here.
enkid 4y ago
Asking why do or not do something is an important part of critical thinking.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  So is thinking of edge cases on your own before asking the question. The article itself even lists some already, if the commenter only read it: > it is trained off of basically the entire internet without paying anyone involved > This is fantastic technology that can enable so many things to be so much easier, and yet I can see it being used for such evil at the same time. I just keep looking at this, and I wonder what happens when someone tries to use it to radicalize people.
  - xena 4y ago
    In case it is interesting, an early idea phase version of this article was called "So much for AI ethics" and it would have gone over that problem you quoted in more detail, but I was having trouble building up enough sarcasm juice to really express it properly.

patrickmcnamara 4y ago

I'm just scared that internet bots are gonna get really, really good. Every comment on Reddit will be fake, every match on Tinder will be a really realistic bot, etc. But I guess they won't be using ChatGPT, just LLMs in general.

pmoriarty 4y ago
When VR gets good enough it arguably won't matter that the "person" on the other end isn't "real". Even now, as long as there are no real-life consequences to your online interaction, it already doesn't matter.
xena 4y ago
I'm personally scared that not only are the bots going to get good, they're going to be everywhere, imagine how 2024's election cycle is going to go with image diffusion, deepfaking, voice synthesis, and text synthesis in the equation. It really makes me wonder what the hell we're in for. It is also super frustrating as someone who does writing and community management to be warned that I may have to totally radically change a lot of approaches to try and filter out AI spam. This part is very annoying. I think the blogspam problem is going to get much worse and we're going to end up with awesome lists for trustable blogs or whatever. I just hope we don't end up having to lose tools like Stack Overflow in the wake of this technological revolution.