3 ms·
I think _humans_ are a threat - to themselves and to everybody else. Currently some of them are promoting unfinished tools, labeling them like 3.5 and 4 (instea
by MikePlacid 3y ago
I think _humans_ are a threat - to themselves and to everybody else. Currently some of them are promoting unfinished tools, labeling them like 3.5 and 4 (instead of 0.35 and 0.4 how somewhat useful but containing unpredictable dangerous errors products are traditionally labeled). And some of them are using these mislabeled products - and get really dangerous results.
Like these ones: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/17/large-libel-models-chatgpt-4-erroneously-reporting-supposed-felony-pleas-complete-with-made-up-media-quotes/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/17/large-libel-models-chat...
In 2021, [redacted], a prominent law professor at [redacted] Law School, was accused of harassment and creating a hostile work environment by a former student. The student claimed that [redacted] had made inappropriate comments about her appearance and clothing.
Source: The [newspaper connected to the law school's undergraduate institution]: "[Redacted] made comments on [the student's] appearance and clothing, and invited her to dine with him alone on multiple occasions — invitations that she felt uncomfortable declining."
The accusation and supporting “quotes” were all AI generated, not real. The [redacted] person was very real though.
- zug_zug 3y agoOne case of libel doesn't strike me as a reason to halt AI development.
- MikePlacid 3y agoLabeling a product correctly as like 0.35 is not the same as halting its development. (And there are a lot more libel cases by the link I’ve provided. You know, this “AI” just generates them each time someone asks).