4 ms·

> But given the weaknesses of the models, perhaps OpenAI should not have released them for such flexible use for a broad audience. I think the advantages great

> But given the weaknesses of the models, perhaps OpenAI should not have released them for such flexible use for a broad audience. I think the advantages greatly outweigh negatives - not only is ChatGPT an extremely useful tool, its also really helped to bring the seriousness of AI and its effects on society into the current discourse. > If OpenAI had released a "fiction writing assistant" product, a "fictional character fun chat" product, etc it would likely be misused less. I really feel that the misuses of this tend to be cases where I would say the issue lies with the user. At some point we have to take some level of personal responsibility for the tools and services we use. Consider the case of the lawyer who included a bunch of stuff from ChatGPT in a federal court filing - I would place the blame on OpenAI squarely at 0% on that one. This is a trained professional in a highly regulated industry who decided to outsource his job to a tool about which he clearly hadn't done even a little bit research. The issue isn't that ChatGPT hallucinated, it's that he exercised judgement that is obviously incredibly poor. I suspect if you went back through his work, you'd find other places where he cut corners and had lapses of ethics and/or responsibility. He's the problem, not ChatGPT. Same thing with the professor who accused all of his students of plagiarism because he put their text into ChatGPT and asked if it had written it. On the one hand, he's trying to keep up with technology that's moving quickly and I have empathy for that. On the other hand, he's a college professor, so he should absolutely be able to do the level of research to find the many, many news articles on this topic that would have made clear that what he's doing is stupid. Making incredibly serious accusations towards students based solely on a tool you clearly haven't even tried to understand is a tremendous breach of ethics, which is the real problem.

pixl97 3y ago
>At some point we have to take some level of personal responsibility for the tools and services we use. This is a very American statement. In most places in the world it's just not going to go over at all. Since OAI is at least trying to play on the global field at this time, it matters.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  It's an American statement, but it's also a professional statement. A lawyer is responsible for what they submit to the court in every legal system I'm aware of. An English judge isn't going to be forgiving of a lawyer who references cases that don't exist because that person didn't understand how ChatGPT works. The examples I cited aren't of average people believing dumb stuff that ChatGPT tells them (because I think we've seen very little harm caused by that) - they're cases in which someone used a tool they didn't understand in their work. It's fairly universal that when you're hired to do a job, you're expected to do so competently, and using tools you don't understand for your job is not doing it competently.
abeppu 3y ago
Absolutely the user has some responsibility. However, chatbots seem to have a history of being attributed greater competence than they have, including by people who know at least partially how they work. If a google engineer whose actual job is to work with an identify issues in the outputs of a similar model can be fooled into believing that it's _sentient_, I think it's appropriate for OpenAI to expect that when they open their product to a large audience that it's going to be trusted to a risky degree. In addition to humans' predisposition to see a knowing/thinking agent when they interact with language, there are now plenty of widely reported outcomes where e.g ChatGPT passes the bar exam, ChatGPT's answers to medical questions are generally judged better than those of doctors (on a web forum), etc. Any person googling around about ChatGPT will find plenty of content about its amazing abilities including the "sparks of AGI" microsoft paper. OpenAI's copy says that you can "get instant answers" or "learn something new". It does not say "get responses which may or may not be answers and which may or may not be correct" and "learn something which may or may not be true". Does OpenAI bear 100% responsibility for the model saying it likely generated student-provided text? Probably not. Does it bear more than 0% responsibility? I think so.

pixl97 3y ago

>At some point we have to take some level of personal responsibility for the tools and services we use. This is a very American statement. In most places in the world it's just not going to go over at all. Since OAI is at least trying to play on the global field at this time, it matters.

idopmstuff 3y ago
It's an American statement, but it's also a professional statement. A lawyer is responsible for what they submit to the court in every legal system I'm aware of. An English judge isn't going to be forgiving of a lawyer who references cases that don't exist because that person didn't understand how ChatGPT works. The examples I cited aren't of average people believing dumb stuff that ChatGPT tells them (because I think we've seen very little harm caused by that) - they're cases in which someone used a tool they didn't understand in their work. It's fairly universal that when you're hired to do a job, you're expected to do so competently, and using tools you don't understand for your job is not doing it competently.

abeppu 3y ago

Absolutely the user has some responsibility. However, chatbots seem to have a history of being attributed greater competence than they have, including by people who know at least partially how they work. If a google engineer whose actual job is to work with an identify issues in the outputs of a similar model can be fooled into believing that it's _sentient_, I think it's appropriate for OpenAI to expect that when they open their product to a large audience that it's going to be trusted to a risky degree. In addition to humans' predisposition to see a knowing/thinking agent when they interact with language, there are now plenty of widely reported outcomes where e.g ChatGPT passes the bar exam, ChatGPT's answers to medical questions are generally judged better than those of doctors (on a web forum), etc. Any person googling around about ChatGPT will find plenty of content about its amazing abilities including the "sparks of AGI" microsoft paper. OpenAI's copy says that you can "get instant answers" or "learn something new". It does not say "get responses which may or may not be answers and which may or may not be correct" and "learn something which may or may not be true". Does OpenAI bear 100% responsibility for the model saying it likely generated student-provided text? Probably not. Does it bear more than 0% responsibility? I think so.