3 ms·
Plan: 1. Fine-tune propaganda into the LLM (e.g. evolution isn't real, or something spicier) 2. Chatbot is so humanlike and convincing, this is very effective
by bestcoder69 4y ago
Plan:
1. Fine-tune propaganda into the LLM (e.g. evolution isn't real, or something spicier)
2. Chatbot is so humanlike and convincing, this is very effective.
3. Nobody can inspect the neural net weights to see this, so it flies under the radar.
4. Profit!
The scariest thing to me here is just the idea that someone would want to experiment with teaching their kid with an LLM in the first place, while we don't have any institutions or processes to really stop this (apparently appealing) Idea from happening, and that it is stupidly vulnerable in so many ways.
You can say laissez faire when it comes to rational adults and their use of LLMs, but it's not right to put the risk on kids.
- what-no-tests 4y agoI can see a huge opportunity for home schooling with LLM - especially in cases where the curriculum is too sparse or the student has many questions which are not covered by the reading material supplied, and the parents don't know enough about it. If the LLM responses were geared more toward inducing the student to perform their own research, to encourage them to do more reading on some topic, or to try things out for themselves to learn through experience (and then carry on the discussion with the LLM afterward) then that might be even better. Simply training young humans to interact with a chat bot which has all the answers is not a good path forward. Using it as a tool to foster human curiosity and growth, to challenge and inspire -- yes. To use it as a salve, as a babysitter, as a stand-in for someone who is too lazy to parent or teach -- no.
- gnicholas 4y ago> geared more toward inducing the student to perform their own research, to encourage them to do more reading on some topic How would kids using an AI chatbot shift to performing their own research or reading? I imagine they would just ask more questions of the chatbot. There should be some way to measure what percent of the information a child learns is from a human, and what percent is from a language model that says human-like things.
- say_it_as_it_is 4y agoManipulations more likely include those of NYTimes manipulations of history, such as the 1619 Project. Questionable texts as these become part of the corpus and the next thing that happens is a child is taught an extreme left propaganda piece.
- sebzim4500 4y agoNo one can inspect the net weights but they can and will inspect the resulting conversations.