3 ms·

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.