8 ms·

My Mom Says She Loves Me. AI Says She's Lying

14 points by paulcjh 2y ago

LinuxBender 2y ago
“Do you love me?” I asked. She said yes. I asked why. She listed a handful of positive qualities, the kinds of things a son would be proud to hear—if they were true. Later, I plugged a transcript of her answer into Coyote. The verdict: “Deception likely.” I am not an expert in this area but I believe this is dangerous and reckless. I would never let AI perform psychological analysis, certainly not a pure text input without voice inflections, timing, amplitude and so on. Humans are barely able to get this right when they hear another human and can see their face. Text without voice and facial inputs would be next to impossible to decipher genuine intent and emotions. I would never permit a big-data chat bot perform such analysis until a very large group of psychoanalysts validate it's findings on hundreds of thousands of test subjects across a very wide spectrum of patients and patient profiles and the results peer reviewed by multiple third parties that can prove they have no financial incentives even nine levels removed. Even at such a time I would still be highly skeptical of any findings especially if it just using text input. All of this is even before considering that AI can be attacked and manipulated by the masses and especially by its operators. Should I discover this is being used in a legal setting, I would get as many millions of people as I could to have the state unseat judges for permitting this to be entered into evidence and to block any future usage.
ecshafer 2y ago
Textual analysis is correct 80% of the time? So its wrong 20% of the time. That is not a good accuracy.
- ben_w 2y ago
  What counts as good depends on what you're using it for; 80% accuracy would be bad for a lawyer while being great for an advertiser.
winddude 2y ago
I mean she's your mom, she has to lie if she's a good mom.
glitchc 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
voidUpdate 2y ago
It really seems like the author of the software needs to be put through this, though I'm guessing it will just come out as inconclusive again. We keep reinventing ways to bully people into admitting they're lying, ways that cannot tell one way or the other if they are actually lying
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wellthisisgreat 2y ago
"new wave of entrepreneurs" claiming to have built psychological tools with LLMs should be scrutinized and prosecuted for any harm they cause. this is pure quackery but unlike others it can ruin people's lives. see polygraph etc.
stuckinhell 2y ago
The AI is probably right. Being serious now, its clear the neural network AI's are incredible and amazing for technical users, but not nearly ready for generalized or uneducated users (or I guess journalists). Do they need to be 100% error free before the general public can accept them and use them ? For me, it's already replaced the work I'd send to interns and I get BETTER results than those interns. So it's already a huge win. My team has already seen a programming improvement of 40% in speed, and less buggy code. So is the benefits of the AI revolution really going to be captured by the ultra technical domain experts ?
- tivert 2y ago
  > For me, it's already replaced the work I'd send to interns and I get BETTER results than those interns. So it's already a huge win. It's a huge win to pull up the ladder? How shortsighted.
  - eschneider 2y ago
    Yeah...you don't hire interns (primarily) to get things done. You hire interns to get a long look at potential future employees. If you're replacing interns with crappy AI, you're not just getting substandard work, but you're killing a future hiring pipeline.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Unless you think that AI is your future hiring pipeline. I don't think that, but some probably do...
- freehorse 2y ago
  > incredible and amazing for technical users > Do they need to be 100% error free before the general public can accept them and use them We should think of the consequences of using an error prone technology for anything even slightly important before we start using it. Technical users are good understanding the limitations, that is except if they have financial or other motive to understate the limitations. A judge is likely a non-technical person, which would tend to trust experts, who often are not as experts as they are assumed to be. We have seen in multiple occasions how the misuse of technology which is not enough understood has negatively impacted people and have lead to convictions of innocents, including facial recognition technology and DNA-identification techniques. Saying that we can just use such a technology without caring much how correct it is without caring about this is irresponsible at best, considering the history to warn us that we should not be reckless like that is just right out there. Now, if you wanna replace your interns with AI at your work it is your choice, but let's see where all this leads one eventually.
tivert 2y ago
https://archive.is/pZEwN https://archive.is/pZEwN
jacknews 2y ago
There's probably little doubt that the author's mother loves them, but maybe she had to be creative with the reasons why. So perhaps the AI is right, in an AI kind of way.
al2o3cr 2y ago
Only sensible that a "polygraph in your pocket" is as unreliable and useless as an actual polygraph. Heckuva job, AI!

14 points by paulcjh 2y ago

“Do you love me?” I asked. She said yes. I asked why. She listed a handful of positive qualities, the kinds of things a son would be proud to hear—if they were true. Later, I plugged a transcript of her answer into Coyote. The verdict: “Deception likely.” I am not an expert in this area but I believe this is dangerous and reckless. I would never let AI perform psychological analysis, certainly not a pure text input without voice inflections, timing, amplitude and so on. Humans are barely able to get this right when they hear another human and can see their face. Text without voice and facial inputs would be next to impossible to decipher genuine intent and emotions. I would never permit a big-data chat bot perform such analysis until a very large group of psychoanalysts validate it's findings on hundreds of thousands of test subjects across a very wide spectrum of patients and patient profiles and the results peer reviewed by multiple third parties that can prove they have no financial incentives even nine levels removed. Even at such a time I would still be highly skeptical of any findings especially if it just using text input. All of this is even before considering that AI can be attacked and manipulated by the masses and especially by its operators. Should I discover this is being used in a legal setting, I would get as many millions of people as I could to have the state unseat judges for permitting this to be entered into evidence and to block any future usage.

ecshafer 2y ago

Textual analysis is correct 80% of the time? So its wrong 20% of the time. That is not a good accuracy.

ben_w 2y ago
What counts as good depends on what you're using it for; 80% accuracy would be bad for a lawyer while being great for an advertiser.

winddude 2y ago

I mean she's your mom, she has to lie if she's a good mom.

glitchc 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

voidUpdate 2y ago

It really seems like the author of the software needs to be put through this, though I'm guessing it will just come out as inconclusive again. We keep reinventing ways to bully people into admitting they're lying, ways that cannot tell one way or the other if they are actually lying

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

wellthisisgreat 2y ago

"new wave of entrepreneurs" claiming to have built psychological tools with LLMs should be scrutinized and prosecuted for any harm they cause. this is pure quackery but unlike others it can ruin people's lives. see polygraph etc.

stuckinhell 2y ago

The AI is probably right. Being serious now, its clear the neural network AI's are incredible and amazing for technical users, but not nearly ready for generalized or uneducated users (or I guess journalists). Do they need to be 100% error free before the general public can accept them and use them ? For me, it's already replaced the work I'd send to interns and I get BETTER results than those interns. So it's already a huge win. My team has already seen a programming improvement of 40% in speed, and less buggy code. So is the benefits of the AI revolution really going to be captured by the ultra technical domain experts ?

tivert 2y ago
> For me, it's already replaced the work I'd send to interns and I get BETTER results than those interns. So it's already a huge win. It's a huge win to pull up the ladder? How shortsighted.
- eschneider 2y ago
  Yeah...you don't hire interns (primarily) to get things done. You hire interns to get a long look at potential future employees. If you're replacing interns with crappy AI, you're not just getting substandard work, but you're killing a future hiring pipeline.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Unless you think that AI is your future hiring pipeline. I don't think that, but some probably do...
freehorse 2y ago
> incredible and amazing for technical users > Do they need to be 100% error free before the general public can accept them and use them We should think of the consequences of using an error prone technology for anything even slightly important before we start using it. Technical users are good understanding the limitations, that is except if they have financial or other motive to understate the limitations. A judge is likely a non-technical person, which would tend to trust experts, who often are not as experts as they are assumed to be. We have seen in multiple occasions how the misuse of technology which is not enough understood has negatively impacted people and have lead to convictions of innocents, including facial recognition technology and DNA-identification techniques. Saying that we can just use such a technology without caring much how correct it is without caring about this is irresponsible at best, considering the history to warn us that we should not be reckless like that is just right out there. Now, if you wanna replace your interns with AI at your work it is your choice, but let's see where all this leads one eventually.

tivert 2y ago

https://archive.is/pZEwN https://archive.is/pZEwN

jacknews 2y ago

There's probably little doubt that the author's mother loves them, but maybe she had to be creative with the reasons why. So perhaps the AI is right, in an AI kind of way.

al2o3cr 2y ago

Only sensible that a "polygraph in your pocket" is as unreliable and useless as an actual polygraph. Heckuva job, AI!