6 ms·

Hmm. By this argument, getting ChatGPT to write your college-course essays for you is also "nothing new", given the abundant opportunities for plagiarism that e

by zamfi 3y ago

Hmm. By this argument, getting ChatGPT to write your college-course essays for you is also "nothing new", given the abundant opportunities for plagiarism that existed before. But I think ease of use matters, in part because trivial (in the sense of "easy" / "taking little time") deceptive acts are easier to justify for otherwise-ethical actors. It's also easier to get into murky waters if step 1 isn't "get my fraud on" but rather "oh what's this new feature?" or "hmm, what would ChatGPT say about Descartes?" Deception is a blurry line, but these are all technological steps that make it easier to approach that line -- and then, perhaps in a thoughtless moment, cross it.

DeathArrow 3y ago
>given the abundant opportunities for plagiarism that existed before. We cannot blame stuff for things people do. You can use a knife to cut your dinner or you can use it to kill someone. The knife and the knife maker are not to blame for your wrong doings. You can choose to lie or not. Don't blame ChatGPT if it is misused by someone. Don't blame Adobe if Photoshop is misused by someone.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Interestingly now there are many people who do blame them, like the discourse with gun. It seems like ease of use and scalability really changes the nature of the discussion.
  - happyraul 3y ago
    I think it's fair to consider what the tool is designed to do as well. Generative AI is capable of distorting reality, but I would argue that it is not the primary purpose of the tool. Likewise, knives can be used to kill, but for the most part they are tools made for cutting, not killing. On the other hand, I fail to see a purpose for guns apart from killing, and for some guns such as hand guns, for killing people.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      >I fail to see a purpose for guns apart from killing, You can use guns for target shooting, you can use guns as a detterent when your life is in danger, you can use guns for hunting.
      - beretguy 3y ago
        > you can use guns as a detterent when your life is in danger That’s also the same argument countries use for nuclear weapons.
        Aicy 3y ago
        And its been an effective argument, with no nuclear powers ever fighting a war vs each other.
        beretguy 3y ago
        No, but it allows countries with nuclear weapons to invade countries without nuclear weapons.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        Those countries would have been able to invade those other countries regardless no?
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        I dont think thats the gotcha you think it is.
        beretguy 3y ago
        It was more of a sidenote.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  The often proposed case against ChatGPT is that everything it produces is illegitimate, no matter how you use it. It would not be the knife in this analogy, it would be the murder.
- totetsu 3y ago
  It’s an analogy that misses the point entirely. To make Chatgpt openai had to use a data set that included the results of lots of people work. Many people write as labor. It’s their most valuable asset. They didn’t ever get asked if they’d like to let the output of their labour be used to make a writing machine. A machine that transfers the value of their asset to Openai. Also an individual can make moral choices about how to apply their labor. A machine cannot. So it is theft of economic and moral power.
- beretguy 3y ago
  > We cannot blame stuff for things people do. While I cannot argue that this statement is wrong it does make me wish some things would never have been invented in the first place because of how much harm they can cause and the fact that there will always be a huge chunk of population who will surely abuse those things for bad. Such as nuclear weapons, AI, etc. Sometimes I even wish internet wouldn’t exist so that we could continue living simpler lives.
- zamfi 3y ago
  > Don't blame ChatGPT if it is misused by someone. I was very careful not to. I’m merely pointing out that availability matters. People’s actions sit in all sorts of levels of gray. Of course it’s up to the person, but that doesn’t mean access/opportunity/circumstance don’t matter.
Sebb767 3y ago
> I think ease of use matters, in part because trivial (in the sense of "easy" / "taking little time") deceptive acts are easier to justify for otherwise-ethical actors. . On the other hand, the tools to do this have been easily accessible for years. Sure, you had to buy Photoshop and spend 15 minutes on YouTube, but this is not a major hurdle. Having the tools universally available just increases the awareness and makes fraud less likely, as people are more inclined to not blindly trust them.
nly 3y ago
In my day we used to copy and paste from Encarta and then carefully rephrase it.
- midasuni 3y ago
  And before that we’d copy out of Britannica by hand. No rephrasing to do now though.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
Until now, you would have needed enough disposable income to pay somebody to write comparable essays for you. Now that the option has been sufficiently democratized, we're forced to take more seriously the possibility that someone's work isn't hard-earned and evaluate our opinions of them (and their grades) differently.

by zamfi 3y ago

DeathArrow 3y ago

>given the abundant opportunities for plagiarism that existed before. We cannot blame stuff for things people do. You can use a knife to cut your dinner or you can use it to kill someone. The knife and the knife maker are not to blame for your wrong doings. You can choose to lie or not. Don't blame ChatGPT if it is misused by someone. Don't blame Adobe if Photoshop is misused by someone.

mcmoor 3y ago
Interestingly now there are many people who do blame them, like the discourse with gun. It seems like ease of use and scalability really changes the nature of the discussion.
- happyraul 3y ago
  I think it's fair to consider what the tool is designed to do as well. Generative AI is capable of distorting reality, but I would argue that it is not the primary purpose of the tool. Likewise, knives can be used to kill, but for the most part they are tools made for cutting, not killing. On the other hand, I fail to see a purpose for guns apart from killing, and for some guns such as hand guns, for killing people.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    >I fail to see a purpose for guns apart from killing, You can use guns for target shooting, you can use guns as a detterent when your life is in danger, you can use guns for hunting.
    - beretguy 3y ago
      > you can use guns as a detterent when your life is in danger That’s also the same argument countries use for nuclear weapons.
      - Aicy 3y ago
        And its been an effective argument, with no nuclear powers ever fighting a war vs each other.
        beretguy 3y ago
        No, but it allows countries with nuclear weapons to invade countries without nuclear weapons.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        Those countries would have been able to invade those other countries regardless no?
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        I dont think thats the gotcha you think it is.
        beretguy 3y ago
        It was more of a sidenote.
jstummbillig 3y ago
The often proposed case against ChatGPT is that everything it produces is illegitimate, no matter how you use it. It would not be the knife in this analogy, it would be the murder.
totetsu 3y ago
It’s an analogy that misses the point entirely. To make Chatgpt openai had to use a data set that included the results of lots of people work. Many people write as labor. It’s their most valuable asset. They didn’t ever get asked if they’d like to let the output of their labour be used to make a writing machine. A machine that transfers the value of their asset to Openai. Also an individual can make moral choices about how to apply their labor. A machine cannot. So it is theft of economic and moral power.
beretguy 3y ago
> We cannot blame stuff for things people do. While I cannot argue that this statement is wrong it does make me wish some things would never have been invented in the first place because of how much harm they can cause and the fact that there will always be a huge chunk of population who will surely abuse those things for bad. Such as nuclear weapons, AI, etc. Sometimes I even wish internet wouldn’t exist so that we could continue living simpler lives.
zamfi 3y ago
> Don't blame ChatGPT if it is misused by someone. I was very careful not to. I’m merely pointing out that availability matters. People’s actions sit in all sorts of levels of gray. Of course it’s up to the person, but that doesn’t mean access/opportunity/circumstance don’t matter.

Sebb767 3y ago

> I think ease of use matters, in part because trivial (in the sense of "easy" / "taking little time") deceptive acts are easier to justify for otherwise-ethical actors. . On the other hand, the tools to do this have been easily accessible for years. Sure, you had to buy Photoshop and spend 15 minutes on YouTube, but this is not a major hurdle. Having the tools universally available just increases the awareness and makes fraud less likely, as people are more inclined to not blindly trust them.

nly 3y ago

In my day we used to copy and paste from Encarta and then carefully rephrase it.

midasuni 3y ago
And before that we’d copy out of Britannica by hand. No rephrasing to do now though.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago

Until now, you would have needed enough disposable income to pay somebody to write comparable essays for you. Now that the option has been sufficiently democratized, we're forced to take more seriously the possibility that someone's work isn't hard-earned and evaluate our opinions of them (and their grades) differently.