17 ms·
FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm
- nonethewiser 3y ago> The agency says it's looking into whether the AI tool has harmed people by generating incorrect information about them Havent heard this complaint before. And I wouldn’t really call this harmful to consumers. If anything its harmful to the subject, but consumers in general. But even so it doesnt meet the definition of libel. How harmful is it really? Of all the complaints against OpenAI, absolutely none of them seem to be what I think really matters. And that is OpenAI tweaking it to be politically correct and geared to wherever they fall on the overton window. Its a tool. It should be sharp. And we should expect more than of its users leat we want dumber ones.
- Eji1700 3y ago> How harmful is it really? You seem to assume it's negative information about people. If it decides to say that some quack hocking raw almonds as cancer cures is FDA approved it's extremely harmful. Hopefully it's not that bad, but there's clearly a large inbetween here and I wouldn't be surprised if it's over the line. That's before you even get into defamation cases.
- silisili 3y agoIt could absolutely cause real harm to any one person or group at a time. There was a recent case where it accused a professor of sexual harassment, seemingly out of nowhere. Imagine it spreading on Twitter and getting mobbed, doxxed, etc. Or a potential employer seeing it and silently rejecting your employment. Excuse the link, the big papers have awful popovers, this one seemed acceptable... https://decrypt.co/125712/chatgpt-wrongly-accuses-law-professor-sexual-assault https://decrypt.co/125712/chatgpt-wrongly-accuses-law-profes...
- userbinator 3y agoWe as a population need to be exposed to misinformation to build up immunity against it. The alternative is for those in power to "decide" for us what is true, which is even worse. I don't trust AI and probably never will. I consider ChatGPT to be merely a PC version of 4chan's infamous /b/ board, which carries the disclaimer "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
- bugglebeetle 3y ago> We as a population need to be exposed to misinformation to build up immunity against it. We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. See also it’s lasting legacy in the current Italian prime minister, Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, and AfD’s electoral successes in Germany.
- xcdzvyn 3y agoAm I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?
- flangola7 3y agoQuacks like a duck, etc. NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built. Their rhetoric in the 30s was not as direct and violent as their later actions, that doesn't mean they weren't still Nazis.
- megapolitics 3y ago>NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built. The first concentration camp, Nohra, opened in 1933, the year the Nazis took power. The more well known Dachau was also opened that year.
- 3y ago
- foreverobama 3y ago[dead]
- biofunsf 3y agoAt the bottom of the ChatGPT prompt it always says: "ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts." So... is this just a case of user error? Or maybe the FTC needs to require a larger font size or just better disclosure? Mostly joking, but not entirely since I do think it's too small. Here's a proposal: https://i.imgur.com/IGON20r.png https://i.imgur.com/IGON20r.png
- flangola7 3y agoThe person being slandered never agreed to that disclaimer. If I manufacture and sell a car with a disclaimer "sometimes the brakes fail" and it runs over and paralyzes someone, the injured person and the judge are not going to care ten cents about whatever disclaimer the purchaser signed. If anything it will be used as evidence that the manufacturer knew they were selling a dangerous faulty product.
- biofunsf 3y agoWell unlike the brakes situation, the ChatGPT lies are non-physically harmful misinformation and they're only sent directly to the user who presumably should be aware of the ChatGPT limitations. If I share ChatGPT lies as truth, that seems no different than me just sharing lies I made up. And it seems like in this case no one even believed the ChatGPT lies. I'm sympathetic because I'm sure it's incredibly hurtful seeing those specific lies, but no one was actually convinced. We all already treat the internet at large as a source of "usually correct but not always" information, and people just need to take the ChatGPT disclaimer to heart and not treat it like some oracle. I imagine articles like these will fade over time as society finds lies coming from the "makes-up-lies-sometimes-machine" (ChatGPT) as boring and as common place as the many websites full of lies we already have.
- flangola7 3y agoThe FTC is currently opening an investigation. Multiple nations are launching inquiries into these systems. If you think this is a problem that isn't going to become much bigger, you are in for a rude surprise.
- justinclift 3y agoReal world example of how things can go very, very badly: :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings
- my_usernam3 3y agoI can only give you an antidote of its dangers in a different category. My significant other, an otherwise very intelligent women, will ask ChatGPT health questions. She knows it might be wrong, but does it anyways to debug her health. I try to point out that even getting suggested a bad diagnosis is very dangerous. The advice it gives has way less nuanced than say the healthMD which has it owns flaws. And unlike coding questions, you can't assume health advice is right until you prove it wrong.
- copperx 3y agoIt's always good to cross verify with a tool such as Isabel. Luckily, ChatGPT and Isabel almost always agree in my tests. https://symptomchecker.isabelhealthcare.com/ https://symptomchecker.isabelhealthcare.com/
- barbariangrunge 3y agoChatgpt lies all the time with health questions, citing nonsense and making up explanations and diagnoses. I’m scared that anybody trusts it
- andrewstuart 3y agoSam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago> I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Because 1) the government isn't going to do anything and 2) investors will think OMG this must be profitable $$$
- justrealist 3y agoThat is completely unrelated to the FTC complaint.
- andrewstuart 3y agoGovernment is a many headed hydra. You can't poke a stick at one head and think the others won't bite you. Altman effectively said to every level of government "OpenAI is extremely dangerous, you'd better look out for us". All the wisdom of Bilbo Baggins reaching into the trolls pocket.
- NoTelnyxBad 3y agoThere's a simple explanation: he believes what he said.
- m3kw9 3y agoIt’s also simple that he needed moat
- NoTelnyxBad 3y agoI think there's something to the arguments that regulation will benefit OpenAI. However, they shouldn't be overstated. OpenAI has had the obviously best LLMs for over 4 years now. They aren't a flash in the pan.
- janalsncm 3y agoWell that’s one way to solve AI alignment. Just sue the companies for harming consumers. I’m half joking, but in the statistical distribution of good, bad and ugly things automation can do, we will need to draw some line as to what is legally actionable. For example, if I Google search recipes for explosives, Google isn’t liable for surfacing accurate information. And imo OpenAI isn’t liable if their chatbot gives the same accurate info in response to the same query in the form of a chat message rather than a link.
- flangola7 3y agoOne of the differences is Google isn't originally writing that text themselves, they're pointing to someone else who has written it. In a potential lawsuit Google would be able to solidly point to the domain and ownership of the actual author of the text. If (when) OpenAI ends up in court, who will they point to? If someone was slandered, the courts will find a human being responsible for it.
- m3kw9 3y agoHas google ever been investigated over surfaced search results that could cause harm?
- vouaobrasil 3y agoIt should be investigated.
- infinitifall 3y agoAnd this would achieve what goal exactly? Even more search result sanitizing? Google scrubbing everything even remotely controversial from their search results because it might "harm" someone? No thank you, I value access to information. The last thing we need is more of "As a search engine I cannot...".
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] Some more discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717420
- nubinetwork 3y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 3y agoPosting links to threads that have comments can be quite helpful, but half of those didn't get noticed at all and have zero comments, so it feels more like you're trying to make a point rather than help people find related conversations.
- nubinetwork 3y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 3y agoIt's not against the guidelines to post something that has been previously posted (a small number of reposts are okay if it has yet to generate significant attention), and it is frequently the case that a topic doesn't catch on until the 3rd or 4th submission. You just came to the thread that did take off and are trying to say that it never should have been submitted because there were a whole bunch of duds that happened to get here first. If you don't want to participate in the discussion that started here in this thread, feel free to find another thread—there's no shortage.
- nubinetwork 3y ago[flagged]
- guy98238710 3y agoThis is such a great time to be a lawyer. Just play any AI like a slot machine until it gives you incorrect results and then sue. Probability is a bitch.
- shmde 3y agoBut dont they have clauses like. Our models sometimes hallucinate, give out wrong answers. Basically use at your own risk and cannot sue us if it hoes wrong
- Balgair 3y agoExceptions exist, that's why we have courts, to figure it out. You can't put up a sign on a rollercoaster that says it's going to kill customers if they ride and then get away scot-free when someone dies. Though it took a court to say that, I'm sure. Same thing here. openai is saying things, and then a court is going to have to decide if that's acceptable.
- BudaDude 3y agoThere is a big difference between someone being killed and a chat bot that says some mean or inaccurate things.
- visarga 3y agoAnything a LLM generates should be verified if it is going to be used in a high stakes decision. Not knowing how LLMs work won't be a good defence. Can't blame ugly handwriting on the pen.
- throwaway_ab 3y agoSam Altman has put a target on every AI company/researchers back with his constant fearmongering when he has spoken directly to the government. In his selfish efforts to build the ultimate moat around his company, Altman's attempt to get government regulation to stifle future competition might backfire. Whilst I'd normally say it would be satisfying to see Sam fail due to his selfishness unfortunately this laser focus from the gov might bring the rest of the industry down with him.
- vouaobrasil 3y agoI hope he succeeds, and stifles AI development. AI is too advanced for humans to use properly and it probably will end humanity. If the rest of the industry is brought down, I for one will be happy.
- Yiin 3y agoYou are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.
- ChatGTP 3y agoThis argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch from advancement to mitigation, international bodies co-operate. Things would probably be ok.
- barbariangrunge 3y ago…see: nuclear weapons
- ChatGTP 3y ago
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoLevine's Law: Every bad thing a public company does is securities fraud. (and also bank fraud, because companies borrow money from banks)
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoWhy do I always get downvoted for saying this? Like it's not true?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- I_am_tiberius 3y agoChatGPT is a privacy nightmare. When you disable "Chat history & training", this setting is stored client side in local storage. That means the setting gets lost when switching browser or deleting your browser cache. Also, when you disable "Chat history & training", plugins are not available to you as a paid user. I believe Sam Altman doesn't care about his users' privacy at all. I lost trust in him completely, when he first mentioned that he doesn't understand why decentralized Finance might be useful to people. Some months later, when Silicon Valley bank was in the process of shutting down, he started crying. At the same time he supports Worldcoin.
- blharr 3y agoThe plug-ins part makes total sense to me. I would reason that plug-ins can save your chat history and use them for their own data, so if you want to keep your privacy totally, plug-ins would ve disabled as well.
- I_am_tiberius 3y agoAnd what about Code interpreter?
- tzekid 3y agoCould be they offload the computing to something like REPL or another third-party on the backend, or?
- exabrial 3y agoI wish the FTC/SEC would break up Facebook, Google, and Apple. ChatGPT is small fish.