4 ms·

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.
  - lisasays 4y ago
    No, it's OpenAI saying "look how credible, authoritative and reliable our product is -- see, even Morgan Stanley uses it."
    - mistercow 4y ago
      It's really, really not. The post is saying "look at how useful our product is", where "our product" here extends significantly beyond the ChatGPT that the general public uses. Using embeddings search to retrieve documents is credible and reliable It's absolutely wild to claim that they're trying to use this to indicate that the general use chatbot version of ChatGPT is "credible, authoritative and reliable" when every user is shown a full screen message to the contrary upon signup, and a disclaimer to the contrary on every single chat. For that matter, even if you just straight up ask ChatGPT if it's a reliable source, they've specifically trained it to tell you that it's not.
      - lisasays 4y ago
        Not wild at all. It's a standard cognitive dissonance technique, widely used in advertising.
        mistercow 4y ago
        “Cognitive dissonance” is the feeling of discomfort one feels when trying to hold two contradictory ideas in their head at once. I’m not sure how you’re using the term, but it doesn’t sound like you’re using it to mean that. At any rate, it kind of seems like your argument would apply to any marketing of ChatGPT as a useful product. It sounds like this is a legitimate use case for the technology that is being discussed in accurate terms. I’m not sure what else you want from them.
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.

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.
- lisasays 4y ago
  No, it's OpenAI saying "look how credible, authoritative and reliable our product is -- see, even Morgan Stanley uses it."
  - mistercow 4y ago
    It's really, really not. The post is saying "look at how useful our product is", where "our product" here extends significantly beyond the ChatGPT that the general public uses. Using embeddings search to retrieve documents is credible and reliable It's absolutely wild to claim that they're trying to use this to indicate that the general use chatbot version of ChatGPT is "credible, authoritative and reliable" when every user is shown a full screen message to the contrary upon signup, and a disclaimer to the contrary on every single chat. For that matter, even if you just straight up ask ChatGPT if it's a reliable source, they've specifically trained it to tell you that it's not.
    - lisasays 4y ago
      Not wild at all. It's a standard cognitive dissonance technique, widely used in advertising.
      - mistercow 4y ago
        “Cognitive dissonance” is the feeling of discomfort one feels when trying to hold two contradictory ideas in their head at once. I’m not sure how you’re using the term, but it doesn’t sound like you’re using it to mean that. At any rate, it kind of seems like your argument would apply to any marketing of ChatGPT as a useful product. It sounds like this is a legitimate use case for the technology that is being discussed in accurate terms. I’m not sure what else you want from them.

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.