3 ms·

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

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.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      To paraphrase Mike Godwin himself, "Go for it, by all means. Fair game." The Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 was about as effective as the January 16 assault, and just as comically incompetent. But there was a lot of sympathy for the far-right terrorists among the German judiciary, just as there is today in the US. The prosecutors and judges who could have stopped the movement in its tracks instead chose to take it easy on the perpetrators, just like today. Now we get to wait ten years to see where, or if, these two convergent timelines diverge.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Marine Le Pen is the daughter of an actual Nazi sympathizer and her politics arose out of those circles. One of the AfD’s leaders just got charged with using Nazi slogans. Spare me the fascist version of the “I’m shocked to find gambling is going on here” spiel. It’s beyond tedious. I’ll just copy and paste Sartre on anti-Semitism in response.
  - trafficante 3y ago
    > We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers. Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for about a decade or so prior to ~2010. Unfortunately, the “problem” of internet free speech seems to have been solved and now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win and what type of fresh authoritarian hell awaits on the other side.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      > now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”
      - silisili 3y ago
        There's a pretty big difference in wanting sexually explicit material out of classrooms, and outright book bans... I'd argue neither side has a stellar record today, but it's the other that's more speech stifling...
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Acknowledging queer people exist or even that sex itself exists is not in anyway explicit. This is just American bigotry and Puritanism run amok.
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

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.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    To paraphrase Mike Godwin himself, "Go for it, by all means. Fair game." The Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 was about as effective as the January 16 assault, and just as comically incompetent. But there was a lot of sympathy for the far-right terrorists among the German judiciary, just as there is today in the US. The prosecutors and judges who could have stopped the movement in its tracks instead chose to take it easy on the perpetrators, just like today. Now we get to wait ten years to see where, or if, these two convergent timelines diverge.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Marine Le Pen is the daughter of an actual Nazi sympathizer and her politics arose out of those circles. One of the AfD’s leaders just got charged with using Nazi slogans. Spare me the fascist version of the “I’m shocked to find gambling is going on here” spiel. It’s beyond tedious. I’ll just copy and paste Sartre on anti-Semitism in response.
- trafficante 3y ago
  > We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers. Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for about a decade or so prior to ~2010. Unfortunately, the “problem” of internet free speech seems to have been solved and now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win and what type of fresh authoritarian hell awaits on the other side.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    > now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”
    - silisili 3y ago
      There's a pretty big difference in wanting sexually explicit material out of classrooms, and outright book bans... I'd argue neither side has a stellar record today, but it's the other that's more speech stifling...
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Acknowledging queer people exist or even that sex itself exists is not in anyway explicit. This is just American bigotry and Puritanism run amok.

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