5 ms·

> That's precisely the problem - far too many people have lousy bullshit detectors. Right. People are the problem, not technology. Which is why crippling the

> That's precisely the problem - far too many people have lousy bullshit detectors. Right. People are the problem, not technology. Which is why crippling the technology is so foolish.

lisasays 4y ago
The issue isn't whether the technology should be crippled or not. Rather - as to whether the legal system holds those accountable (be it the creators of the technology, or those who "misuse" it) liable for the consequences of their actions.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  The creators liable for a hallucination? Consequences of what action? And yes, it has already been crippled in an effort to correct bias and to protect people from themselves.
  - lisasays 4y ago
    The creators liable for a hallucination? For hallucinations marketed and sold as a reliable source of information - yes. Consequences of what action? For what they do to others on the basis of the above.
    - catchnear4321 4y ago
      Who is selling anything as a reliable source of information? Since that’s the basis of whatever this is.
      - lisasays 4y ago
        Who is selling anything as a reliable source of information? OpenAI for example, whose marketing materials present it as exactly that. For example: You essentially have the knowledge of the most knowledgeable person in Wealth Management—instantly”, McMillan adds. “Think of it as having our Chief Investment Strategist, Chief Global Economist, Global Equities Strategist, and every other analyst around the globe on call for every advisor, every day. We believe that is a transformative capability for our company.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        And did it have any note about not being a financial advisor? What else was said? I’m assuming there was more to it than that. We can move the goalposts to T&Cs being a problem, but that’s even further from AI being the problem. Wasn’t this supposed to be about the dangers of AI? This sounds, again, still, like the dangers of humans. With a new tool.
        lisasays 4y ago
        It's always been about the dangers of humans - specifically those who create and market products of this nature. With us as their unwilling test subjects.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        Right. But that’s not ChatGPT. That’s OpenAI.
        lisasays 4y ago
        That's not the product that's doing X, it's the company I would reckon that to the good (if not the vast) majority of those who will see their jobs either yanked away from them entirely, or otherwise negatively perturbed in some significant way by this technology; or who are acutely affected by the toxic content it will just as inevitably produce -- this distinction will be entirely moot.
        blibble 4y ago
        probably a good time to dump any Morgan Stanley if they believe this to be the case
        mistercow 4y ago
        This is the blogpost that quote is from: https://openai.com/customer-stories/morgan-stanley https://openai.com/customer-stories/morgan-stanley That's not OpenAI talking about ChatGPT, the public facing product. It's an executive at Morgan Stanley talking about an internal chat tool they're building based on embeddings search, which does, in fact produce reliable information, because it's being used to retrieve non-AI-generated content.
      - singleshot_ 4y ago
        I think the idea is that if someone sold me their “9mm slug to the brain as-a-service” concept on the basis that 9mm slugs are perfectly safe, my estate would still have a pretty good wrongful death case against them. There are some things (crimes, intentional torts) that are harder to disclaim than you might think.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        You assume a lot about what I think. But let’s continue along these lines. Have you read the disclaimers? Or are you treating ChatGPT like an unlocked firearm?
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        Apologies. It is a lot harder to disclaim crime, recklessness, or malice than one might think. I admit: I have no earthly idea what you think and wouldn’t dream of assuming especially since you’re right here to answer questions. Fair catch. Yeah, I’ve read the legal language on the ChatGPT site. I’ve got no worry about an unlocked firearm but I treat ChatGPT like a disruptive technology that will likely cause a great deal of damage when it is used unwisely. I’m not sure what bearing that has on whether a disclaimer can effectively protect Microsoft et al. from liability here, but I hope you’re about to enlighten me.
latexr 4y ago
> People are the problem, not technology. That’s the same argument as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It pretends nothing is wrong, or that if it were that would be nothing we could do. None of those is true or a reason to not have a conversation.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  Which is not to say the argument is necessarily a bad one. The key is - one has assume there will always be bad actors, and weigh potential outcomes of various policies with that assumption in mind. That assumption is how computer security has come such a long way in the last 20 years. In the case of guns, assuming bad actors means one cannot assume criminals will follow gun laws, but that manufacturers, distributors, and resellers will (for the most part).
  - latexr 4y ago
    > The key is - one has assume there will always be bad actors, and weigh potential outcomes of various policies with that assumption in mind. Agreed. And we have to discuss those policies, which is what we’re doing now. > Which is not to say the argument is necessarily a bad one. Which is why I disagree here. The argument to “ignore the thing itself because people are the problem” ignores the thing ultimately affects the people.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  > People are the problem > It pretends nothing is wrong, Not that one > or that if it were that would be nothing we could do. Also not that one. How about “this isn’t addressing the issue,” which is stated as… people?
  - latexr 4y ago
    The problem isn’t people in the abstract. At best the issue could be characterised as “people (mis)using the thing”. Trying to dismiss the thing as irrelevant wavers between the naïve and the disingenuous.
lepus 4y ago
That's like saying people who see a door handle and instinctively pull are foolish because they missed the "push" sign, so just blame the people. It's not at all helpful no matter the veracity. Good technologies/rules are designed around people and our flaws even if eventually we're working on reducing said flaws.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  That analogy implies that ChatGPT is designed in a misleading way. ChatGPT has a long list of warnings, caveats, instructions, etc. Before you get to submit anything. Like T&Cs. If you don’t read them, yes, that’s on you. They may be unreasonable. But so were you when you decided they weren’t worth reading. This is in addition to all of the sensationalist headlines all over the place that talk about how unreliable the answers can be. Or rather those are in addition. They came second. After a lot of people didn’t read, or disregarded what they read. Edit: and could people stop anthropomorphizing the language model? It can’t accuse anyone of anything. That’s sensationalist garbage.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    > ChatGPT has a long list of warnings, caveats, instructions, etc. Before you get to submit anything. Like T&Cs. If you don’t read them, yes, that’s on you. That’s little comfort for anyone whom ChatGPT falsely accuses of sexual harassment. The person who skips the warnings isn’t the person who’s harmed.
    - catchnear4321 4y ago
      ChatGPT isn’t capable of accusations. It predicts text. Sometimes inaccurately. That’s what those silly words are trying to indicate. It is why they are worth reading. There’s even a prompt to make sure the user reads it. (Humans lie.) What the human then does with the output may resemble an accusation, or may even be one. I wonder if law professors take the time to read those silly words… I bet they do. All the more curious.
      - 4y ago

> That's precisely the problem - far too many people have lousy bullshit detectors. Right. People are the problem, not technology. Which is why crippling the technology is so foolish.

lisasays 4y ago

The issue isn't whether the technology should be crippled or not. Rather - as to whether the legal system holds those accountable (be it the creators of the technology, or those who "misuse" it) liable for the consequences of their actions.

catchnear4321 4y ago
The creators liable for a hallucination? Consequences of what action? And yes, it has already been crippled in an effort to correct bias and to protect people from themselves.
- lisasays 4y ago
  The creators liable for a hallucination? For hallucinations marketed and sold as a reliable source of information - yes. Consequences of what action? For what they do to others on the basis of the above.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    Who is selling anything as a reliable source of information? Since that’s the basis of whatever this is.
    - lisasays 4y ago
      Who is selling anything as a reliable source of information? OpenAI for example, whose marketing materials present it as exactly that. For example: You essentially have the knowledge of the most knowledgeable person in Wealth Management—instantly”, McMillan adds. “Think of it as having our Chief Investment Strategist, Chief Global Economist, Global Equities Strategist, and every other analyst around the globe on call for every advisor, every day. We believe that is a transformative capability for our company.
      - catchnear4321 4y ago
        And did it have any note about not being a financial advisor? What else was said? I’m assuming there was more to it than that. We can move the goalposts to T&Cs being a problem, but that’s even further from AI being the problem. Wasn’t this supposed to be about the dangers of AI? This sounds, again, still, like the dangers of humans. With a new tool.
        lisasays 4y ago
        It's always been about the dangers of humans - specifically those who create and market products of this nature. With us as their unwilling test subjects.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        Right. But that’s not ChatGPT. That’s OpenAI.
        lisasays 4y ago
        That's not the product that's doing X, it's the company I would reckon that to the good (if not the vast) majority of those who will see their jobs either yanked away from them entirely, or otherwise negatively perturbed in some significant way by this technology; or who are acutely affected by the toxic content it will just as inevitably produce -- this distinction will be entirely moot.
      - blibble 4y ago
        probably a good time to dump any Morgan Stanley if they believe this to be the case
      - mistercow 4y ago
        This is the blogpost that quote is from: https://openai.com/customer-stories/morgan-stanley https://openai.com/customer-stories/morgan-stanley That's not OpenAI talking about ChatGPT, the public facing product. It's an executive at Morgan Stanley talking about an internal chat tool they're building based on embeddings search, which does, in fact produce reliable information, because it's being used to retrieve non-AI-generated content.
    - singleshot_ 4y ago
      I think the idea is that if someone sold me their “9mm slug to the brain as-a-service” concept on the basis that 9mm slugs are perfectly safe, my estate would still have a pretty good wrongful death case against them. There are some things (crimes, intentional torts) that are harder to disclaim than you might think.
      - catchnear4321 4y ago
        You assume a lot about what I think. But let’s continue along these lines. Have you read the disclaimers? Or are you treating ChatGPT like an unlocked firearm?
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        Apologies. It is a lot harder to disclaim crime, recklessness, or malice than one might think. I admit: I have no earthly idea what you think and wouldn’t dream of assuming especially since you’re right here to answer questions. Fair catch. Yeah, I’ve read the legal language on the ChatGPT site. I’ve got no worry about an unlocked firearm but I treat ChatGPT like a disruptive technology that will likely cause a great deal of damage when it is used unwisely. I’m not sure what bearing that has on whether a disclaimer can effectively protect Microsoft et al. from liability here, but I hope you’re about to enlighten me.

latexr 4y ago

> People are the problem, not technology. That’s the same argument as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It pretends nothing is wrong, or that if it were that would be nothing we could do. None of those is true or a reason to not have a conversation.

TimTheTinker 4y ago
Which is not to say the argument is necessarily a bad one. The key is - one has assume there will always be bad actors, and weigh potential outcomes of various policies with that assumption in mind. That assumption is how computer security has come such a long way in the last 20 years. In the case of guns, assuming bad actors means one cannot assume criminals will follow gun laws, but that manufacturers, distributors, and resellers will (for the most part).
- latexr 4y ago
  > The key is - one has assume there will always be bad actors, and weigh potential outcomes of various policies with that assumption in mind. Agreed. And we have to discuss those policies, which is what we’re doing now. > Which is not to say the argument is necessarily a bad one. Which is why I disagree here. The argument to “ignore the thing itself because people are the problem” ignores the thing ultimately affects the people.
catchnear4321 4y ago
> People are the problem > It pretends nothing is wrong, Not that one > or that if it were that would be nothing we could do. Also not that one. How about “this isn’t addressing the issue,” which is stated as… people?
- latexr 4y ago
  The problem isn’t people in the abstract. At best the issue could be characterised as “people (mis)using the thing”. Trying to dismiss the thing as irrelevant wavers between the naïve and the disingenuous.

lepus 4y ago

That's like saying people who see a door handle and instinctively pull are foolish because they missed the "push" sign, so just blame the people. It's not at all helpful no matter the veracity. Good technologies/rules are designed around people and our flaws even if eventually we're working on reducing said flaws.

catchnear4321 4y ago
That analogy implies that ChatGPT is designed in a misleading way. ChatGPT has a long list of warnings, caveats, instructions, etc. Before you get to submit anything. Like T&Cs. If you don’t read them, yes, that’s on you. They may be unreasonable. But so were you when you decided they weren’t worth reading. This is in addition to all of the sensationalist headlines all over the place that talk about how unreliable the answers can be. Or rather those are in addition. They came second. After a lot of people didn’t read, or disregarded what they read. Edit: and could people stop anthropomorphizing the language model? It can’t accuse anyone of anything. That’s sensationalist garbage.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  > ChatGPT has a long list of warnings, caveats, instructions, etc. Before you get to submit anything. Like T&Cs. If you don’t read them, yes, that’s on you. That’s little comfort for anyone whom ChatGPT falsely accuses of sexual harassment. The person who skips the warnings isn’t the person who’s harmed.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    ChatGPT isn’t capable of accusations. It predicts text. Sometimes inaccurately. That’s what those silly words are trying to indicate. It is why they are worth reading. There’s even a prompt to make sure the user reads it. (Humans lie.) What the human then does with the output may resemble an accusation, or may even be one. I wonder if law professors take the time to read those silly words… I bet they do. All the more curious.
    - 4y ago