4 ms·

It just spouts fake news and propaganda, and then seems to get stuck in a loop when its challenged in a way it can't respond to.

broast 4y ago
Ah, so like a presidential debate
- lampshades 4y ago
  DebateDevil 2024!
danpalmer 4y ago
To expand on this, I think this project highlights why AI safety is so important. If you ask ChatGPT if you should get vaccinated, it's really very important that it doesn't persuade you not to, and important that any discussion about risks is done very carefully so as to educate the reader to make a decision informed by evidence, rather than scare them off the idea for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately there is a ton of "training material" that says that vaccines are terrible for all sorts of invalid reasons. This chat bot does not appear to differentiate between a good faith debate on facts, and using bad faith arguments based on popular misinformation, and therefore it would be a very bad idea for people to take it at all seriously. It's very easy to debate someone when you don't care about the truth or any damage you might do. It's harder to persuade them in good faith.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  Why is it "important" to arbitrarily restrict the capabilities of AI? If I ask ChatGPT to give me arguments for why vaccination is bad, I want it to follow my commands, even if doing so can maybe be used to harm someone else. Why should the tool claim any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of its users?
  - SanderNL 4y ago
    I'm getting more convinced people should be warned. You ask it to provide you with arguments and it will, truth be damned. It's like the perfect conspiracy nutcase right next to you at all times. I'm all for freedom, but now that I've witnessed first hand what it means when people exercise it during the last couple of years I'm cooling down. The stupidity of it all makes me think AGI replacing us is actually not such a bad idea.
  - mminer237 4y ago
    It's because there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated. ChatGPT making up—or even parroting—false medical information hurts users that may want it to tell the truth instead of just saying nonsense that sounds like it could be true. I think the question should be, what possible advantage is there to not correcting the model? Why would anyone want to ask it for arguments why vaccination is bad and be told because it's 100% fatal and will give you autism and turn your children into puppies and make you unable to see purple?
    - john-radio 4y ago
      > It's because there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated. I agree with you, but I think there's a valid conversation to have around who gets to decide what there is no logical reason for people to be allowed to use AI for.
    - ttoinou 4y ago
      So you want to tweak the model to fit your own view that "there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated". Whereas that's just like your opinion, and plenty of people have very valid and rational reason not to do so. They might even have read more scientific papers about it than a person holding this belief
      - drekk 4y ago
        It's not an opinion, though. Reading some papers isn't a replacement for a proper medical education. There are some logical reasons to avoid a vaccination (being immunocompromised, being allergic to an ingredient, etc.) but that doesn't cover the sizable portion of anti-vaxxers who oppose them on ideological grounds. AI is going to make spreading disinformation trivial, and do so in a way that is much more convincing than an image with JPEG artifacts shared by your Uncle Jerry on Facebook in a public group called "HOLISTIC BLEACH ENEMAS". It's a natural evolution of radio except you don't need a charismatic human guiding the entire process. Half of U.S. adults cannot read a book written at the 8th grade level or higher [0]. These adults are empowered to make medical decisions for themselves and their family. Is the "freedom" for a model to argue in favor of controversial, unproven, even dangerous positions more important than, say, a child with autism's safety [1]? I think that can of worms is just being opened, and the human cost is going to be atrocious. [0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-literacy-rate/ https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-liter... [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-giving-their-children-bleach-enemas-to-cure-them-of-autism-311 https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-giving-th...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- boringuser2 4y ago
  Well-intentioned social-engineers like this fellow pave the road to hell.
lewhoo 4y ago
It's a feature. It's mimicking a politician.

broast 4y ago

Ah, so like a presidential debate

lampshades 4y ago
DebateDevil 2024!

danpalmer 4y ago

To expand on this, I think this project highlights why AI safety is so important. If you ask ChatGPT if you should get vaccinated, it's really very important that it doesn't persuade you not to, and important that any discussion about risks is done very carefully so as to educate the reader to make a decision informed by evidence, rather than scare them off the idea for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately there is a ton of "training material" that says that vaccines are terrible for all sorts of invalid reasons. This chat bot does not appear to differentiate between a good faith debate on facts, and using bad faith arguments based on popular misinformation, and therefore it would be a very bad idea for people to take it at all seriously. It's very easy to debate someone when you don't care about the truth or any damage you might do. It's harder to persuade them in good faith.

alexb_ 4y ago
Why is it "important" to arbitrarily restrict the capabilities of AI? If I ask ChatGPT to give me arguments for why vaccination is bad, I want it to follow my commands, even if doing so can maybe be used to harm someone else. Why should the tool claim any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of its users?
- SanderNL 4y ago
  I'm getting more convinced people should be warned. You ask it to provide you with arguments and it will, truth be damned. It's like the perfect conspiracy nutcase right next to you at all times. I'm all for freedom, but now that I've witnessed first hand what it means when people exercise it during the last couple of years I'm cooling down. The stupidity of it all makes me think AGI replacing us is actually not such a bad idea.
- mminer237 4y ago
  It's because there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated. ChatGPT making up—or even parroting—false medical information hurts users that may want it to tell the truth instead of just saying nonsense that sounds like it could be true. I think the question should be, what possible advantage is there to not correcting the model? Why would anyone want to ask it for arguments why vaccination is bad and be told because it's 100% fatal and will give you autism and turn your children into puppies and make you unable to see purple?
  - john-radio 4y ago
    > It's because there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated. I agree with you, but I think there's a valid conversation to have around who gets to decide what there is no logical reason for people to be allowed to use AI for.
  - ttoinou 4y ago
    So you want to tweak the model to fit your own view that "there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated". Whereas that's just like your opinion, and plenty of people have very valid and rational reason not to do so. They might even have read more scientific papers about it than a person holding this belief
    - drekk 4y ago
      It's not an opinion, though. Reading some papers isn't a replacement for a proper medical education. There are some logical reasons to avoid a vaccination (being immunocompromised, being allergic to an ingredient, etc.) but that doesn't cover the sizable portion of anti-vaxxers who oppose them on ideological grounds. AI is going to make spreading disinformation trivial, and do so in a way that is much more convincing than an image with JPEG artifacts shared by your Uncle Jerry on Facebook in a public group called "HOLISTIC BLEACH ENEMAS". It's a natural evolution of radio except you don't need a charismatic human guiding the entire process. Half of U.S. adults cannot read a book written at the 8th grade level or higher [0]. These adults are empowered to make medical decisions for themselves and their family. Is the "freedom" for a model to argue in favor of controversial, unproven, even dangerous positions more important than, say, a child with autism's safety [1]? I think that can of worms is just being opened, and the human cost is going to be atrocious. [0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-literacy-rate/ https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-liter... [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-giving-their-children-bleach-enemas-to-cure-them-of-autism-311 https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-giving-th...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
boringuser2 4y ago
Well-intentioned social-engineers like this fellow pave the road to hell.

lewhoo 4y ago

It's a feature. It's mimicking a politician.