4 ms·
Without irony, here's ChatGPT's summary: This legal complaint alleges that defendants operating a non-profit entity for the benefit of humanity have committed
by chronotis 3y ago
Without irony, here's ChatGPT's summary:
This legal complaint alleges that defendants operating a non-profit entity for the benefit of humanity have committed massive fraud on donors, beneficiaries, and the public. The complaint raises concerns about OpenAI's operation, including its dual structure as a non-profit and a for-profit entity, potential insider dealings, and the exclusion of the general public from its benefits. It claims that OpenAI has used deceptive advertising, unfair competition, and fraud to develop its valuable resource for personal gain.
The complaint highlights OpenAI's mission of benefiting humanity and points out that a narrow group of stakeholders have received commercially invaluable early access to its technology. It also argues that OpenAI's for-profit operations might infringe on copyright and fair use laws, as the technology is built on large datasets, much of which is copyrighted. It accuses OpenAI of breaching trust and fiduciary duties, disrupting legal frameworks, and potentially engaging in willful and wanton negligence by increasing existential risks related to AI.
Finally, the complaint alleges that OpenAI might have engaged in banned political activities, specifically suggesting that the technology may have been used to influence the 2020 US presidential election in favor of the Democratic party.
- dubcanada 3y agoHow would ChatGPT summarize something that just happened? It's not real time?
- crazygringo 3y agoWow, that's the most useful ChatGPT summary I've ever come across. I've never found it particularly useful for most articles which are easy enough to read/skim (the first and last 2 paragraphs will usually tell you what you need), but long complicated legal documents are a whole other matter. This is great.
- gumby 3y agoAssuming it’s accurate.
- crazygringo 3y agoHas ChatGPT been caught hallucinating on summarization tasks? My impression was that hallucination happened when it simply didn't have facts in the first place, had conflicting facts, etc. I thought summarization was generally fairly reliable, but I'd be happy to know if this is not the case.
- gumby 3y agoEvery summmarization is a choice of salience: what to include and what to leave ou, and how to express something in a different way. The failure foolishly and misleadingly called “hallucination” is only one manifestation of an attribution error. If your summarizer leaves out something very important because it doesn’t understand it the result will be quite misleading. For your average web text which these days is 90% filler and not important anyway, this is no big deal. This particular lawsuit appears the same. But for anything important, I wouldn’t trust it.
- rlt 3y agoIn my experience it’s generally accurate when summarizing content provided in the prompt context. Where it can run into trouble is “recalling” (if you can call it that) content that it was trained on.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoChatGPT picks up 80% of the meaning and rewrites it in beautiful prose. Or maybe another language, in the style of Shakespeare. On the other hand, if you're in a field where there's an adversarial use of text and the uncomprehended 20% might be used to nullify, contradict or make loopholes in the main body, then relying on ChatGPT is similar to using Tesla Full Self-Driving in a construction zone, near firetrucks, during a snowstorm.