3 ms·

The original story is scary. It shows how easily Google Bard can be manipulated. This was just a joke and Bard has corrected itself. However, what if this was a

The original story is scary. It shows how easily Google Bard can be manipulated. This was just a joke and Bard has corrected itself. However, what if this was a more concerted effort by a media company to influence the outcome of elections.

prox 4y ago
Exactly, if you can make it say dirt on anything it’s just as a liability as any other source.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  This is why I believe these bots should never be taken too seriously, at least until there is a lot more transparency around their sources of information. Until there are bots which are trained on highly verifiable sources of information that's open sourced. I don't think it's wise to just "trust a doctor" but can you imagine the influence of such a system. Imagine if the wrong person becomes the CEO of OpenAI and people are using it for medical advice, all of a sudden it starts recommending people take opiate based medication for many, many ailments? We have this with doctors today, who would be exposed to a lot more accountability than a mega-corp with access to massive legal teams / robots. I see this as actually being a real existential risk to large swathes of the populace. I hate to say it, but I'd already be taking every single thing returned with a grain of salt, and probably doing that forever.
  - RugnirViking 4y ago
    > at least until there is a lot more transparency around their sources of information. ? doesn't this story include the ai giving the exact source it got the information right as it says the untrue info There are a lot of things to critisise about hallucinating ai but this one literally said where it got the info
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      In this case yes, others suggested it was manual intervention from the bard team. Again, who knows ?
  - prox 4y ago
    I’ve been using you.com because it adds sources after each query.
crote 4y ago
Did it "correct itself", or did someone at Google read Hacker News and adjusted the prompt?
- clbrmbr 4y ago
  Sounds like. Would be amazing to see a prompt reveal right now.
olalonde 4y ago
BEO: Bard Engine Optimization
alfis 4y ago
x

prox 4y ago

Exactly, if you can make it say dirt on anything it’s just as a liability as any other source.

ChatGTP 4y ago
This is why I believe these bots should never be taken too seriously, at least until there is a lot more transparency around their sources of information. Until there are bots which are trained on highly verifiable sources of information that's open sourced. I don't think it's wise to just "trust a doctor" but can you imagine the influence of such a system. Imagine if the wrong person becomes the CEO of OpenAI and people are using it for medical advice, all of a sudden it starts recommending people take opiate based medication for many, many ailments? We have this with doctors today, who would be exposed to a lot more accountability than a mega-corp with access to massive legal teams / robots. I see this as actually being a real existential risk to large swathes of the populace. I hate to say it, but I'd already be taking every single thing returned with a grain of salt, and probably doing that forever.
- RugnirViking 4y ago
  > at least until there is a lot more transparency around their sources of information. ? doesn't this story include the ai giving the exact source it got the information right as it says the untrue info There are a lot of things to critisise about hallucinating ai but this one literally said where it got the info
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    In this case yes, others suggested it was manual intervention from the bard team. Again, who knows ?
- prox 4y ago
  I’ve been using you.com because it adds sources after each query.

crote 4y ago

Did it "correct itself", or did someone at Google read Hacker News and adjusted the prompt?

clbrmbr 4y ago
Sounds like. Would be amazing to see a prompt reveal right now.

olalonde 4y ago

BEO: Bard Engine Optimization

alfis 4y ago