4 ms·

OpenAI is clear about the fact that ChatGPT can hallucinate, where have they ever said otherwise?

arbitrarian 3y ago
This is what I don't get. Not only have they not said otherwise, but they put it right up front in a pretty easy to understand brief message before you start using it. I guess lawyers just click agree without reading too.
- jprete 3y ago
  People are accustomed to ignoring the fine print as legal CYA with no real-world relevance. This is also why the product warnings that "The State of California considers this to cause cancer" are a joke and not a useful message.
  - Too 3y ago
    It’s not even fine print, there is a big Limitations section almost at the top of the chatgpt landing page with this as first bullet: ”ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers.” It does admittedly sound innocent, it should be written with a more scary tone on to how big extent it bullshits, not just “sometimes”. Still doesn’t excuse the incompetence of the lawyer in question.
seydor 3y ago
One of the most widely circulated PR about GPT4 is that it passed the bar exam https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/03/14/gpt-4-beats-90-of-lawyers-trying-to-pass-the-bar/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/03/14/gpt-4-b... and it's had the most vocal and sensational PR about how AI needs regulation now https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt-ai-regulation-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt... People assume the smalltext does not apply to them. openAI does not get a lot of flak from the media for the amount of BS that chatGPT can blurt out Does anyone remember what happened to Galactica which did the same thing ? That too was clearly labeled as hallucinatory . But it was shut down because they did not BS the media enough about regulations and such. I m afraid these LLMs are turning into too much of a political game to be useful for much longer. On the other hand, if they become political, then people will be even more incentivized to build offline, local LLMs

This is what I don't get. Not only have they not said otherwise, but they put it right up front in a pretty easy to understand brief message before you start using it. I guess lawyers just click agree without reading too.

jprete 3y ago
People are accustomed to ignoring the fine print as legal CYA with no real-world relevance. This is also why the product warnings that "The State of California considers this to cause cancer" are a joke and not a useful message.
- Too 3y ago
  It’s not even fine print, there is a big Limitations section almost at the top of the chatgpt landing page with this as first bullet: ”ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers.” It does admittedly sound innocent, it should be written with a more scary tone on to how big extent it bullshits, not just “sometimes”. Still doesn’t excuse the incompetence of the lawyer in question.

seydor 3y ago

One of the most widely circulated PR about GPT4 is that it passed the bar exam https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/03/14/gpt-4-beats-90-of-lawyers-trying-to-pass-the-bar/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2023/03/14/gpt-4-b... and it's had the most vocal and sensational PR about how AI needs regulation now https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt-ai-regulation-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt... People assume the smalltext does not apply to them. openAI does not get a lot of flak from the media for the amount of BS that chatGPT can blurt out Does anyone remember what happened to Galactica which did the same thing ? That too was clearly labeled as hallucinatory . But it was shut down because they did not BS the media enough about regulations and such. I m afraid these LLMs are turning into too much of a political game to be useful for much longer. On the other hand, if they become political, then people will be even more incentivized to build offline, local LLMs