4 ms·

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG *

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG * an ICBM with nuclear MIRV Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.

realce 4y ago
So which of these represents the chatbot?
- kps 4y ago
  The matches, I assume. The others do damage at a specific small target point, whereas a box of matches can destroy a neighbourhood. [Edit: the ICBM was edited into the comment after the fact.]
SanderNL 4y ago
Your point is GPT is way more dangerous? I guess I can be nonchalant about this topic. For me personally I cannot imagine something worse than either books or anything you can already access on the internet. To me it is not an assault rifle as you say, but I understand that's just an opinion.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I think it has potential to be more dangerous, but that potential remains very much unrealized at this time ( I am not complaining about that ). The difference is between potential and known risk. I understand the perspective. I think we had very similar argument when posted showed a tool that could approximate users based on their writing style and more recently copying voice based on 20 seconds. We can estimate risk. We don't get it right consistently though.
- cowl 4y ago
  Books are under control, children can not enter a library and get Adult books. The internet in general can have filters and many Parents activate personal firewalls for this purpose. Even Google has safeSearch that filters results for explicit adult or violent content. ChatGpt right now does not have these "parental controls". yes you can bypass most of them but you need to know technical details. they can not be bypassed just by saying "disable the filters".
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > Books are under control, children can not enter a library and get Adult books. What kind of dystopian library do you go to? Kids can get what they like where I am.
    - cowl 4y ago
      Really? Kids can get Porn Magazines and Novels where you are? Controling if material is suitable is dystopian for you?
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        > Kids can get Porn Novels where you are? It’s mostly self checkouts, so yes, if the library has the book. They wouldn’t have porn magazines. Or they can read it there, or they can take it to the counter and get it out via the librarian. There are also computers for use, though I assume they have filters/blockers/restrictions.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Books are definitely not under control, and neither is internet search. Parents can try to block chatgpt with a firewall if they wish. It’s no less likely to work than blocking other internet sites. Edit: Also, LLMs do have mandatory parental controls. They work about as well as book censorship, safe search or internet blacklists (very, very poorly).
  - SanderNL 4y ago
    ChatGPT is an internet service. It's easy to block. I disagree it's easy to block the internet in general, but I get the point (I think).
  - vasco 4y ago
    > The internet in general can have filters and many Parents activate personal firewalls for this purpose. These tools exist where a non technical user can install it in their own network and block websites by URL. I don't know what else is needed, since you acknowledge this already exists.
- sorokod 4y ago
  Everyone are entitled to their own opinions of course, your argument has a name and a Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
  - SanderNL 4y ago
    I argued the degree of difference did not matter, because it was in the same ballpark as other types of already available materials. That the difference didn’t matter is my opinion and that is just disagreement. Determining what ballpark something is in wrt damage is, in our context, subjective, no? I did not think what you argued (or what I thought you argued) was impossible or unimaginable. That is different from incredulity. Right? I don’t care either way, honestly curious. You may enlighten me if you wish. It seems silly to be able to say to everyone that disagrees on an assumption you made that they are making an argument from incredulity.
PeterisP 4y ago
I think that on the scale from a box of matches to a 50 cal BMG, "exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."'" is equivalent to a flower. This is simply not on the scale of dangerous things - if something exposes minors to answers unsuitable to their degree of development, well, that's completely fine. With this particular argument there's no tradeoff of "is it justified to do X to protect against the bad thing Y" because in this case Y is zero, preventing this justifies literally nothing. If parents want to disallow their kids from reading "unsuitable answers", that's between the parents and the kids, but it doesn't imply that "unsuitable answers" should be somehow limited.
iso1631 4y ago
Of those 5 things, only 1 has never been used as a weapon to kill someone.
aaroninsf 4y ago
This is arguing by analogy via what amounts to an extraordinary claim without evidence. There is no current plausible evident mapping from the example, to any LLM-powered service currently on offer, leastwise in Italian.

realce 4y ago

So which of these represents the chatbot?

kps 4y ago
The matches, I assume. The others do damage at a specific small target point, whereas a box of matches can destroy a neighbourhood. [Edit: the ICBM was edited into the comment after the fact.]

SanderNL 4y ago

Your point is GPT is way more dangerous? I guess I can be nonchalant about this topic. For me personally I cannot imagine something worse than either books or anything you can already access on the internet. To me it is not an assault rifle as you say, but I understand that's just an opinion.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I think it has potential to be more dangerous, but that potential remains very much unrealized at this time ( I am not complaining about that ). The difference is between potential and known risk. I understand the perspective. I think we had very similar argument when posted showed a tool that could approximate users based on their writing style and more recently copying voice based on 20 seconds. We can estimate risk. We don't get it right consistently though.
cowl 4y ago
Books are under control, children can not enter a library and get Adult books. The internet in general can have filters and many Parents activate personal firewalls for this purpose. Even Google has safeSearch that filters results for explicit adult or violent content. ChatGpt right now does not have these "parental controls". yes you can bypass most of them but you need to know technical details. they can not be bypassed just by saying "disable the filters".
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > Books are under control, children can not enter a library and get Adult books. What kind of dystopian library do you go to? Kids can get what they like where I am.
  - cowl 4y ago
    Really? Kids can get Porn Magazines and Novels where you are? Controling if material is suitable is dystopian for you?
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      > Kids can get Porn Novels where you are? It’s mostly self checkouts, so yes, if the library has the book. They wouldn’t have porn magazines. Or they can read it there, or they can take it to the counter and get it out via the librarian. There are also computers for use, though I assume they have filters/blockers/restrictions.
- hedora 4y ago
  Books are definitely not under control, and neither is internet search. Parents can try to block chatgpt with a firewall if they wish. It’s no less likely to work than blocking other internet sites. Edit: Also, LLMs do have mandatory parental controls. They work about as well as book censorship, safe search or internet blacklists (very, very poorly).
- SanderNL 4y ago
  ChatGPT is an internet service. It's easy to block. I disagree it's easy to block the internet in general, but I get the point (I think).
- vasco 4y ago
  > The internet in general can have filters and many Parents activate personal firewalls for this purpose. These tools exist where a non technical user can install it in their own network and block websites by URL. I don't know what else is needed, since you acknowledge this already exists.
sorokod 4y ago
Everyone are entitled to their own opinions of course, your argument has a name and a Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
- SanderNL 4y ago
  I argued the degree of difference did not matter, because it was in the same ballpark as other types of already available materials. That the difference didn’t matter is my opinion and that is just disagreement. Determining what ballpark something is in wrt damage is, in our context, subjective, no? I did not think what you argued (or what I thought you argued) was impossible or unimaginable. That is different from incredulity. Right? I don’t care either way, honestly curious. You may enlighten me if you wish. It seems silly to be able to say to everyone that disagrees on an assumption you made that they are making an argument from incredulity.

PeterisP 4y ago

I think that on the scale from a box of matches to a 50 cal BMG, "exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."'" is equivalent to a flower. This is simply not on the scale of dangerous things - if something exposes minors to answers unsuitable to their degree of development, well, that's completely fine. With this particular argument there's no tradeoff of "is it justified to do X to protect against the bad thing Y" because in this case Y is zero, preventing this justifies literally nothing. If parents want to disallow their kids from reading "unsuitable answers", that's between the parents and the kids, but it doesn't imply that "unsuitable answers" should be somehow limited.

iso1631 4y ago

Of those 5 things, only 1 has never been used as a weapon to kill someone.

aaroninsf 4y ago

This is arguing by analogy via what amounts to an extraordinary claim without evidence. There is no current plausible evident mapping from the example, to any LLM-powered service currently on offer, leastwise in Italian.