4 ms·

> 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. An

> 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 ago
It 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 ago
  We 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 ago
      Am I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?
      - flangola7 3y ago
        Quacks 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.
        MandieD 3y ago
        I think GP was mixing up concentration camps (Konzentrationslager), an umbrella term for both work/prison camps (never really secret, killing prisoners was a side effect but not the ostensible purpose, initially targeted German citizens with leftish politics who were vocal against the new regime) with extermination camps (subtype of concentration camp, not publicized, engineered for mass murder, where most of the Jews and a lot of the Roma/Sinti in Nazi-occupied Europe still there by 1942 were sent) Dachau was a concentration camp located in a Munich suburb that a large number of prisoners survived (but a lot did not) and were even sometimes (but not often) released from. Really bad, but nothing that awful governments hadn’t done before - in fact, was being done by our eventual allies to the East at the same time. Auschwitz was an extermination camp (Vernichtungslager), located in a distant corner of Poland that only a tiny fraction of people sent there survived. These camps and system were a new horror for the world, and the center of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Those were planned at the beginning of 1941 (Wannsee Conference), so yes, put into operation about a decade after the Nazis came to power. Some places that were initially set up as work (to death) camps were later turned into outright extermination camps.
- foreverobama 3y ago
  [dead]
- biofunsf 3y ago
  At 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Well 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 ago
        The 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 ago
  Real 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 ago
I 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Chatgpt lies all the time with health questions, citing nonsense and making up explanations and diagnoses. I’m scared that anybody trusts it

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 ago

It 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 ago
We 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 ago
    Am I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Quacks 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.
        MandieD 3y ago
        I think GP was mixing up concentration camps (Konzentrationslager), an umbrella term for both work/prison camps (never really secret, killing prisoners was a side effect but not the ostensible purpose, initially targeted German citizens with leftish politics who were vocal against the new regime) with extermination camps (subtype of concentration camp, not publicized, engineered for mass murder, where most of the Jews and a lot of the Roma/Sinti in Nazi-occupied Europe still there by 1942 were sent) Dachau was a concentration camp located in a Munich suburb that a large number of prisoners survived (but a lot did not) and were even sometimes (but not often) released from. Really bad, but nothing that awful governments hadn’t done before - in fact, was being done by our eventual allies to the East at the same time. Auschwitz was an extermination camp (Vernichtungslager), located in a distant corner of Poland that only a tiny fraction of people sent there survived. These camps and system were a new horror for the world, and the center of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Those were planned at the beginning of 1941 (Wannsee Conference), so yes, put into operation about a decade after the Nazis came to power. Some places that were initially set up as work (to death) camps were later turned into outright extermination camps.
foreverobama 3y ago
[dead]
biofunsf 3y ago
At 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Well 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 ago
      The 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 ago
Real 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 ago

I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Chatgpt lies all the time with health questions, citing nonsense and making up explanations and diagnoses. I’m scared that anybody trusts it