3 ms·

For all of the talk about regulation, there has been a lot of concern about what people might do with AI advisors. I haven't seen a lot of talk about the res

by Lerc 2y ago

For all of the talk about regulation, there has been a lot of concern about what people might do with AI advisors. I haven't seen a lot of talk about the responsibilities of the advisors to act in the interest of their users. Laws exist in advisory roles in other industry to enforce acting in the interests of their clients. They should be applied to AI advice. I'm ok with an AI being mistaken, or refusing to help, but they absolutely should not deliberately advise in a manner that benefits another party to the detriment of the user.

aktuel 2y ago
The web is full of human shills. Why should LLMs be any different? They will tack their boilerplate disclaimer on and be done with it.
bayindirh 2y ago
> but they absolutely should not deliberately advise in a manner that benefits another party to the detriment of the user. No, no... We don't prevent that in capitalism. See, regulation stifles innovation. Let the market decide. People might get harmed, but we can hide these events. It's research... Things happen... Making money is just a secondary effect. We're all non-profits. /s.
khafra 2y ago
If you can solve the technical problem of ensuring an AI acts on behalf of its user's interests, please post the solution on the AI Alignment Forum: https://www.alignmentforum.org/ https://www.alignmentforum.org/ So far, that is not a feature of existing or hypothesized AI systems, and it's a pretty important feature to add before AI exceeds human capabilities in full generality.
- Lerc 2y ago
  As I said, I am ok with AI acting mistakenly against it's users wishes. I am not asking people to implement things for which they currently have no solutions. That is clearly distinct from an AI acting deliberately against its users wishes by the design of the creators. Paid advertising influencing responses would be in this category and should not be permitted.

by Lerc 2y ago

aktuel 2y ago

The web is full of human shills. Why should LLMs be any different? They will tack their boilerplate disclaimer on and be done with it.

bayindirh 2y ago

> but they absolutely should not deliberately advise in a manner that benefits another party to the detriment of the user. No, no... We don't prevent that in capitalism. See, regulation stifles innovation. Let the market decide. People might get harmed, but we can hide these events. It's research... Things happen... Making money is just a secondary effect. We're all non-profits. /s.

khafra 2y ago

If you can solve the technical problem of ensuring an AI acts on behalf of its user's interests, please post the solution on the AI Alignment Forum: https://www.alignmentforum.org/ https://www.alignmentforum.org/ So far, that is not a feature of existing or hypothesized AI systems, and it's a pretty important feature to add before AI exceeds human capabilities in full generality.

Lerc 2y ago
As I said, I am ok with AI acting mistakenly against it's users wishes. I am not asking people to implement things for which they currently have no solutions. That is clearly distinct from an AI acting deliberately against its users wishes by the design of the creators. Paid advertising influencing responses would be in this category and should not be permitted.