2 ms·

> The Onion can publish satire because it's a satire site. The NYTimes can't publish something that sounds like a serious NYTimes article and then claim, if sue

> The Onion can publish satire because it's a satire site. The NYTimes can't publish something that sounds like a serious NYTimes article and then claim, if sued, that it was actually a satire article and that 100% of readers just read it as serious when it was meant as satire. My point is that ChatGPT doesn't "publish" anything; it's not a publication. It's a language model trained on text, which produces text in response to one or more prompts. Using that text is completely up to the user, and it should never be used as a source of facts. Being able to summarize facts finding specific sources looks like a completely different kind of tool to me, one which would be super useful, but not at all what a LLM in itself is about.

bhawks 4y ago
How does this not become AI powered citogenesis? [0] Saying that it is solely the user's misuse of the tool which is the problem minimizes how easy and how damaging the misuse is. Eventually you hit the situation where everyone is making false claims because transitively down the graph a few users were using an LLM that made baseless defaming statements and others cite those publications as evidence for the defamation. The creators of generative models need to have some skin in the game around the correctness of statements made about real people. Reputational damage cannot be an externality for them. The current AI moment is basking in the glory of how generally right generated text is, when that text is wrong it needs to be their problem too. 0: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
- mhink 4y ago
  > The creators of generative models need to have some skin in the game around the correctness of statements made about real people. Only insofar as they claim that the statements generated by a model should be understood to be factual- and in my experience, not only have I not seen any such claims, I've seen vigorous insistence in the *opposite* direction: that LLM output should *not* be considered factual. OpenAI sticks this disclaimer right underneath their input box: "ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts". > Eventually you hit the situation where everyone is making false claims because transitively down the graph a few users were using an LLM that made baseless defaming statements and others cite those publications as evidence for the defamation. This is no different from any other gossip chain, except for the fact that the originators used a tool to generate the initial gossip.
  - bhawks 4y ago
    > OpenAI sticks this disclaimer right underneath their input box This is a legal fig leaf - the reason the AI hype cycle is so high is that it is so often correct. We're seeing it pass medical licensure exams, bar exams, engineering interviews, and so on. Those are all cheered. When it fails we can't just say "you're holding it wrong". > except for the fact that the originators used a tool to generate the initial gossip. Scale is a very significant difference. If the tool can generate untold mountains of unique gossip - there is a great need to have some way to control it, and a significant share of responsibility should be on the tool creator. Why should the rest of society have to clean up this mess? There are significant parallels in this discussion with the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people statement. Which is also a gross oversimplification of a complex problem.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > When it fails we can't just say "you're holding it wrong". a better analogy would be tossing a screwdriver off the top of a tall building and then claiming screwdrivers are dangerous because look at how you managed to dangerously distribute one into a windshield when you got your hands on it

bhawks 4y ago

How does this not become AI powered citogenesis? [0] Saying that it is solely the user's misuse of the tool which is the problem minimizes how easy and how damaging the misuse is. Eventually you hit the situation where everyone is making false claims because transitively down the graph a few users were using an LLM that made baseless defaming statements and others cite those publications as evidence for the defamation. The creators of generative models need to have some skin in the game around the correctness of statements made about real people. Reputational damage cannot be an externality for them. The current AI moment is basking in the glory of how generally right generated text is, when that text is wrong it needs to be their problem too. 0: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/

mhink 4y ago
> The creators of generative models need to have some skin in the game around the correctness of statements made about real people. Only insofar as they claim that the statements generated by a model should be understood to be factual- and in my experience, not only have I not seen any such claims, I've seen vigorous insistence in the *opposite* direction: that LLM output should *not* be considered factual. OpenAI sticks this disclaimer right underneath their input box: "ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts". > Eventually you hit the situation where everyone is making false claims because transitively down the graph a few users were using an LLM that made baseless defaming statements and others cite those publications as evidence for the defamation. This is no different from any other gossip chain, except for the fact that the originators used a tool to generate the initial gossip.
- bhawks 4y ago
  > OpenAI sticks this disclaimer right underneath their input box This is a legal fig leaf - the reason the AI hype cycle is so high is that it is so often correct. We're seeing it pass medical licensure exams, bar exams, engineering interviews, and so on. Those are all cheered. When it fails we can't just say "you're holding it wrong". > except for the fact that the originators used a tool to generate the initial gossip. Scale is a very significant difference. If the tool can generate untold mountains of unique gossip - there is a great need to have some way to control it, and a significant share of responsibility should be on the tool creator. Why should the rest of society have to clean up this mess? There are significant parallels in this discussion with the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people statement. Which is also a gross oversimplification of a complex problem.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    > When it fails we can't just say "you're holding it wrong". a better analogy would be tossing a screwdriver off the top of a tall building and then claiming screwdrivers are dangerous because look at how you managed to dangerously distribute one into a windshield when you got your hands on it