3 ms·
I get it that companies want to distance themselves for bad stuff those LLMs output. But what baffles me is the way they deal with this issue. Nowadays if you
by harrisoned 3y ago
I get it that companies want to distance themselves for bad stuff those LLMs output. But what baffles me is the way they deal with this issue.
Nowadays if you share or reproduce anything controversial, is as if you are endorsing such content. LLM's outputs are user generated content for what is worth it, both from inferece and from training. That line of thinking that the host would be responsible for everything it says, even if the users force it to, is ludicrous to me but it seems like how the world nowadays has become.
Take the headlines from when BingAI was acting-up, the level of anthromorphization of those applications were insane. I suppose they do it for the headlines, but people also falls on that and play along. If ChatGPT says something bad, is as if the CEO of OpenAI was saying it verbatin, period, and it blows back directly at the company. Take a look at the subreddit of ChatGPT and see how people act when it outputs something weird.
It saddens me that people lack common sense in such a way, and that's why we can't have nice things in the end. The companies also assumed the roles of babysitting the users, like a bunch of no-brainers. As long as online culture follow this, it will get worse.
- dorkwood 3y agoI once worked on an application where the user would write a description of their character's traits, and the character's outfit would update based on their input. We got a complaint from a customer who put the word "murderer" in their description and saw that their character now brandished an axe. From my perspective, they offended themselves.
- sgift 3y agoMaybe they'd preferred a sword as their murder weapon. It's a very personal thing after all. More serious: I agree. If an app tells you that it will update your image based on the traits and you put in murderer then there's really no valid complaint about anything relating to it in the image. Okay, maybe a few things would warrant a complaint. Next time, the app should just show them in prison cloth.
- harrisoned 3y agoI wonder if they where really offended or it was an impulsive overreaction on their part :P In times where people like that exists, chatbots that can swear are weapons of mass destruction.
- amf12 3y ago> I get it that companies want to distance themselves for bad stuff those LLMs output. Another thing companies want to avoid is liability. Take the example of "dangerously spicy mayo" in the article. Let's say some person asks ChatGPT for a recipe and it suggests one which results in hospitalization of that person. There is a good chance they might sue OpenAI for it. Liability wise, it may be better to avoid answering such prompts.
- harrisoned 3y ago> There is a good chance they might sue OpenAI for it. Indeed there is! Companies have been sued (and lost) for way less than that. But it begs the question: should the user not know better? Is it really the company's fault, even with gigantic disclaimers in the front page and the user clicking in "i read it and i agree"? For me, this is the issue. Doesn't matter if there is a warning, an advice or even a manual, the company will ALWAYS be the one to blame for anything. Treating users like that has made way for people to act in bad faith so it makes sense for them to act like that. Better safe than sorry.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago> Nowadays if you share or reproduce anything controversial, is as if you are endorsing such content. LLM's outputs are user generated content for what is worth it, both from inferece and from training. That line of thinking that the host would be responsible for everything it says, even if the users force it to, is ludicrous to me but it seems like how the world nowadays has become. If it applies to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, ... etc. it will apply to AI chatbots. Facebook didn't write those posts that radicalize, promote hatred, and ignite conflict, but if it publishes them and promote them to users, the FBI will want them to take it down.
- kaffeeringe 3y agoThat is also because they pretend like their text generators are anything more than autocomplete 2 0. They say that it is "artificial intelligence" - it is their company brain that intelligently answers questions. If they just called it text generator, it would be up to the user to male things off the generated texts.