3 ms·
That's victim blaming. They didn't overtly complain about an issue with the project, they were asking for usage guidance. This is the kind of contextual inferen
by dTal 3y ago
That's victim blaming. They didn't overtly complain about an issue with the project, they were asking for usage guidance. This is the kind of contextual inference which language models are supposed to be (relatively) good at. The whole sales pitch of GPT-4 is a do-what-I-mean interface, and it clearly did not do what they meant, or what any reasonable hacker would expect them to mean.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago> that's victim blaming No, it's not. Victim blaming refers to the victims of crime being accused of being at fault for what someone did to them, often but not always because they are part of a societal outgroup. > The whole sales pitch of GPT-4 is a do-what-I-mean interface, and it clearly did not do what they meant, or what any reasonable hacker would expect them to mean. It's clearly marked as experimental, people are repeatedly told not to rely on it (ie when they login each time, and often by the ai itself), and there have now been a year+ of very public examples of various AIs getting things hilariously wrong. From the login warning: > While we have safeguards in place, the system may occasionally generate incorrect or misleading information and produce offensive or biased content. It is not intended to give advice. Any "reasonable hacker" would extrapolate from that, that giving it access to an API could lead it to do unexpected things. Any "reasonable hacker" would contain it within a sandboxed project. Etc etc.
- trolan 3y agoIt's no more victim blaming than if someone ignored every safety regulation and got themselves hurt or killed. You are being told these things are beta, can produce incorrect results and then in every Convo OP is feeding an option for 'Do things with GitHub' context to the model. Of course it's going to bias to using GitHub especially after he already used one plugin