4 ms·

What about if someone posts in r/relationshipadvice or similar, and gets the exact same 100x response without knowing the whole aspects of someone's relationshi

What about if someone posts in r/relationshipadvice or similar, and gets the exact same 100x response without knowing the whole aspects of someone's relationship?

stickfigure 2y ago
What do you mean if? That's what happens now. Nobody on the internet, meat or machine, is qualified to give you relationship advice.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Yeah, I mean, there's countless of sources even without the AI where you can get questionable suggestions or advice. The kid could've gone to 4chan or even just been talking to actual friends. Parents instead of good parenting are deciding to play opportunistic victims.
kstrauser 2y ago
If all of the advice givers were Reddit employees paid to deliver advice to visitors? Yeah, maybe.
- sodality2 2y ago
  I think the defense would be something along the lines of "AI responses aren't representative or official statements".
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    I believe that would be hard to defend in court. "Did someone or something inside your company say these words to the plaintiff?" "Yes." You can only disclaim so much, especially when you're making money off the output of the (person|AI).
    - sodality2 2y ago
      Character.ai doesn't seem to have direct monetization mechanisms. In addition, sites like HN aren't generally held responsible for everything a user says. They could try to argue that the characters are sufficiently influenced by the user-generated prompts and user-facing conversations to be no longer their own. (Section 230)
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        But they're still acting on the company's behest. If I hire a jerk to work tech support and they insult or cause damage to my customers, I don't get to say "shrug, they don't represent my company". Of course they do. They were on my payroll. I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that the AI was performing the duties of a contractor, so the company should be responsible for its misbehavior, just as if a human contractor did it.
        sodality2 2y ago
        Do you think that applies to open source models, or is it the act of performing inference that makes it an act the business is responsible for? ie, Meta's Llama does the same thing.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        But with Character AI you are hiring a roleplay service which can be open ended in terms of what you are looking for. If you are looking to roleplay with a jerk, why shouldn't you be able to do that, and in such case why should the company be held liable?
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        In any case I think society and building of society should be directed in such a way that we don't have to censor the models or baby the models, but rather educate people on what these things really are, and what makes them produce which content, for which reasons. I don't want to live in a society where we have to helicopter everyone around in fear of one single misinterpreted response by the LLM.

What about if someone posts in r/relationshipadvice or similar, and gets the exact same 100x response without knowing the whole aspects of someone's relationship?

stickfigure 2y ago

What do you mean if? That's what happens now. Nobody on the internet, meat or machine, is qualified to give you relationship advice.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Yeah, I mean, there's countless of sources even without the AI where you can get questionable suggestions or advice. The kid could've gone to 4chan or even just been talking to actual friends. Parents instead of good parenting are deciding to play opportunistic victims.

kstrauser 2y ago

If all of the advice givers were Reddit employees paid to deliver advice to visitors? Yeah, maybe.

sodality2 2y ago
I think the defense would be something along the lines of "AI responses aren't representative or official statements".
- kstrauser 2y ago
  I believe that would be hard to defend in court. "Did someone or something inside your company say these words to the plaintiff?" "Yes." You can only disclaim so much, especially when you're making money off the output of the (person|AI).
  - sodality2 2y ago
    Character.ai doesn't seem to have direct monetization mechanisms. In addition, sites like HN aren't generally held responsible for everything a user says. They could try to argue that the characters are sufficiently influenced by the user-generated prompts and user-facing conversations to be no longer their own. (Section 230)
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      But they're still acting on the company's behest. If I hire a jerk to work tech support and they insult or cause damage to my customers, I don't get to say "shrug, they don't represent my company". Of course they do. They were on my payroll. I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that the AI was performing the duties of a contractor, so the company should be responsible for its misbehavior, just as if a human contractor did it.
      - sodality2 2y ago
        Do you think that applies to open source models, or is it the act of performing inference that makes it an act the business is responsible for? ie, Meta's Llama does the same thing.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        But with Character AI you are hiring a roleplay service which can be open ended in terms of what you are looking for. If you are looking to roleplay with a jerk, why shouldn't you be able to do that, and in such case why should the company be held liable?
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      In any case I think society and building of society should be directed in such a way that we don't have to censor the models or baby the models, but rather educate people on what these things really are, and what makes them produce which content, for which reasons. I don't want to live in a society where we have to helicopter everyone around in fear of one single misinterpreted response by the LLM.