4 ms·

GeoGuessr aside, I really hope that this tech will be able to help save kids someday, e.g. help with FBI's ECAP (https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/ecap https://www.fbi

by arm32 1y ago

GeoGuessr aside, I really hope that this tech will be able to help save kids someday, e.g. help with FBI's ECAP (https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/ecap https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/ecap).

thrance 1y ago
I wouldn't put too much hope on this technology bringing more good than harm to the world.
- ketzo 1y ago
  If we don’t actively try to identify and implement positive use cases, then yes, it’ll definitely bring more harm than good. Isn’t that all the more reason to call out our high hopes?
  - thrance 1y ago
    I don't know what in my comment made you think I was opposed to seeking positive applications of this technology. From the guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      Oh, we're guidelines posting? > Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
- mopenstein 1y ago
  But it will bring some percentage of good and some percentage of bad. Which ain't half bad, if you ask me.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    What a quip! What if it's 51% bad?
  - martinsnow 1y ago
    What do you do when it flags you or someone you know who's innocent? Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. Normal people don't understand why they are so confident. They're confident because they believe all the data they have is correct. I forsee a future with many faux trials because they don't understand critical thinking.
    - RussianCow 1y ago
      > Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.
      - snowe2010 1y ago
        This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.
        fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        I don't see that as particularly analogous. The average person will have had LLM technology in their own hands for years, whereas with DNA it was completely foreign to them and their only choice really was to trust the experts. And on top of that DNA testing matured and is very useful now.
    - 8organicbits 1y ago
      If you are interested in the history of pseudoscience in the courtroom and methods for deciding what should be permitted in court, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard It is, and will continue to be, a hard problem.
- mkoubaa 1y ago
  The bad is already priced in. Nothing wrong with hoping for more good.
parsimo2010 1y ago
Looking at those photos, those are some crazy hard pictures- masked regions of the image, partially cropped faces, blurry, pictures of insides of rooms. I don't think any current LLM is going to be able to Sherlock Holmes their way into finding any of those people. Maybe they will one day if there's a model trained on a facial recognition database with every living person included.
- nojvek 1y ago
  > Maybe they will one day if there's a model trained on a facial recognition database with every living person included. That day isn't too far away. With right to privacy being slowly eroded and Palantir getting their hands deeper into US govt, I wouldn't be suprised if they already have this. China most likely has a model trained on every citizen.
textlapse 1y ago
Oops I made my comment after yours! Exactly my thought. These tech companies could spare 0.001% of their resources to significantly move the needle. Or even host a geoguessr style competition and allow ‘steroids’ use (ChatGPT) during such runs.

by arm32 1y ago

GeoGuessr aside, I really hope that this tech will be able to help save kids someday, e.g. help with FBI's ECAP (https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/ecap https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/ecap).

thrance 1y ago

I wouldn't put too much hope on this technology bringing more good than harm to the world.

ketzo 1y ago
If we don’t actively try to identify and implement positive use cases, then yes, it’ll definitely bring more harm than good. Isn’t that all the more reason to call out our high hopes?
- thrance 1y ago
  I don't know what in my comment made you think I was opposed to seeking positive applications of this technology. From the guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    Oh, we're guidelines posting? > Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
mopenstein 1y ago
But it will bring some percentage of good and some percentage of bad. Which ain't half bad, if you ask me.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  What a quip! What if it's 51% bad?
- martinsnow 1y ago
  What do you do when it flags you or someone you know who's innocent? Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. Normal people don't understand why they are so confident. They're confident because they believe all the data they have is correct. I forsee a future with many faux trials because they don't understand critical thinking.
  - RussianCow 1y ago
    > Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison. I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.
    - snowe2010 1y ago
      This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        I don't see that as particularly analogous. The average person will have had LLM technology in their own hands for years, whereas with DNA it was completely foreign to them and their only choice really was to trust the experts. And on top of that DNA testing matured and is very useful now.
  - 8organicbits 1y ago
    If you are interested in the history of pseudoscience in the courtroom and methods for deciding what should be permitted in court, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard It is, and will continue to be, a hard problem.
mkoubaa 1y ago
The bad is already priced in. Nothing wrong with hoping for more good.

parsimo2010 1y ago

Looking at those photos, those are some crazy hard pictures- masked regions of the image, partially cropped faces, blurry, pictures of insides of rooms. I don't think any current LLM is going to be able to Sherlock Holmes their way into finding any of those people. Maybe they will one day if there's a model trained on a facial recognition database with every living person included.

nojvek 1y ago
> Maybe they will one day if there's a model trained on a facial recognition database with every living person included. That day isn't too far away. With right to privacy being slowly eroded and Palantir getting their hands deeper into US govt, I wouldn't be suprised if they already have this. China most likely has a model trained on every citizen.

textlapse 1y ago

Oops I made my comment after yours! Exactly my thought. These tech companies could spare 0.001% of their resources to significantly move the needle. Or even host a geoguessr style competition and allow ‘steroids’ use (ChatGPT) during such runs.