4 ms·
Microsoft could also manipulate the US government by giving its own spin to the "right" answers and thus changing the outcome of the decisions. Basically a form
by Jacky4Chan 3y ago
Microsoft could also manipulate the US government by giving its own spin to the "right" answers and thus changing the outcome of the decisions. Basically a form of indirect control depending where and how it's allowed to be used.
It could also be used manipulate people:
- engage with people in online forums to stir their opinion
- making it seem the consensus is different with many posts
It could also be used affect people's freedom of movement:
- By analyzing someones social media posts, ChatGPT could say someone is a: "dangerous individual" which could be used to deny US entry or provide a justification to be constantly monitored.
It could also affect people's privacy:
- Doxxing people on reddit and other social media
- Identifying account belonging to a group or the same individual based on writing patterns, subreddits visited, etc...
- mrits 3y agoHow is it much different that wikipedia or just about any other source of information?
- SomeBoolshit 3y agoThe tedious parts are automated.
- Jacky4Chan 3y agoGPT answers are dynamic not constant like wikipedia, scientific articles, information records. It's also individualized, thus others can't help spot it is wrong. Answers are subject to be filtered or manipulated according to a hidden set of rules by unknown corporate or government agendas that make it hide or provide incorrect and misleading information, for example, in antitrust investigations, internal governmental investigations, etc...
- mrits 3y ago"Answers are subject to be filtered or manipulated according to a hidden set of rules by unknown corporate or government agendas" When was the last time you tried to make a wiki edit on a popular page?
- Solvency 3y agoAgreed in genera but the volatile edit history of many Wikipedia articles would bely your definition of constant. Also scientific articles being constant don't quite matter when the "status quo" of science is asymmetrically understood. There are doctors today still pushing the "fat is unhealthy" myth because of the sugar industry. Despite the ubiquity of modern unbiased research papers and proof. But when you ask a doctor for advice, you're essentially getting the wetware equivalent of a stochastic parrot, because this random doctor is giving you dynamic answers coming from his/her own completely non-standardized corpus of knowledge.
- NBJack 3y agoTo be fair, at least Wikipedia offers a traceable history of those edits. Most, if not all sufficiently large LLMs, are effectively opaque boxes that even their creator can rarely explain how a specific answer was reached, much less how the billions of parameters changed in the network over time.
- hughesjj 3y agoYou can also peg a known good version of Wikipedia and host it locally. That said I can't imagine trying to audit the whole shebang.