4 ms·

The simple "AI responses may include mistakes" disclaimer or ChatGPT's "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." CYA text at the bottom of the UI are c

The simple "AI responses may include mistakes" disclaimer or ChatGPT's "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." CYA text at the bottom of the UI are clearly no longer sufficient. After years of news stories about LLM hallucinations in fact-specific domains and people still getting burnt by them, LLM providers should be more aggressive in educating users about their fallability since hallucinations can't ever be fully fixed, even if it means adding friction.

tbrownaw 1y ago
> should be more aggressive in educating users about their fallability This might be an "experience is the best teacher" situation. It'd probably be pretty hard to invent a disclaimer that'd be as effective as getting bit.
- minimaxir 1y ago
  Unfortunately, getting bit in cases such as publishing misinformation or false legal citations waste everyone time, not just their own.
eddythompson80 1y ago
That doesn't really make sense. You either make the LLM provider liable for the output of the model, or you have the current model. The friction already exists. All these AI companies and cloud providers are running "censored models" and more censorship is added at every layer. What would more friction be here? more pop-ups? Doing the former basically means killing the model-hosting business. Companies could develop models, use them internally and give them to their employees, but no public APIs exists. Companies strike legally binding contracts to use/license each other models, but the general public doesn't have access to those without something that would mitigate the legal risk. Maybe years down the line, as attitudes soften, some companies would begin to push the boundaries. Automating the legal approval process, opening signups, etc.
- minimaxir 1y ago
  Yes, more popups, retention metrics be damned. Even 2 years since ChatGPT, many people still think it's omniscent which is what's causing trouble.
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    I don't think more pop-ups solve anything. It'll just make a chrome extension called "ChatGPTAutoAccept" get popular. You think someone who is thinking it's omniscent will suddenly reconsider because a "reminder, this is dumb as shit" pop up keeps annoying them every 5 minutes?
  - MaxikCZ 1y ago
    People who are suspectible to read AI slop as universal truth do so because they dont read much at all. I guess you would be surprised how huge amount of users dont bother to read anything at all: a popup only exists in a sense "how do I close this", which is being solved by clicking at the most visually distinct button. If you asked them what they clicked or what the popup was about, they look at you like you are crazy for even assuming they should know.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    Hyperbole is as much of a problem. ChatGPT is not omniscient, but it's also not "dumb as shit", at least not across the board. LLMs got popular in big part because they provide unique, distinctly new value. This black and white assumption that because LLMs are not always giving probably correct answers therefore they are dangerous, reminds me of what the generation of my parents and teachers thought of Wikipedia when it became popular. The problems were different ("anyone can edit" vs. "hallucinates stuff"), but the mindset seems very similar.
neepi 1y ago
To be fair people are pretty damn unintelligent when it comes to verifying information. Despite my academic background I catch myself doing it all the time as well. However LLMs amplify this damage by sounding authoritative on everything and even worse being promoted as authoritative problem solvers for all domains with a small disclaimer. This double think is unacceptable. But if they made the disclaimer bigger then the AI market would collapse in about an hour much like people’s usage does when they don’t verify something and get shot by someone actually authoritative. This has happened at work a couple of times and caused some fairly high profile problems. Many people refuse to use it now. What we have is bullshit generator propped up by avoiding speaking the truth because the truth compromises the promoted utility. Classic bubble.
userbinator 1y ago
The disclaimer needs to be in bold red text at the top.
YetAnotherNick 1y ago
You are assuming that the people burnt by LLM responses doesn't know that ChatGPT can make mistakes?
camillomiller 1y ago
Remember when Apple was roasted to hell anytime Maps would push you to get a wrong turn? Or when Google Maps would take you to the wrong place at the wrong time (like a sketchy neighborhood)? Those were all news stories they had to do PR crisis management for. Now they slap a disclaimer like that and we’re all good to go. The amount of public opinion forgiveness these technologies are granted is disproportionate and disheartening.
- arcanemachiner 1y ago
  Yeah, but we're all used to having software integrated into our lives now. And we all now how shitty and broken software often is...
- thejohnconway 1y ago
  That always struck me as pretty overblown, given that before map apps, people got lost all the goddam time. It was a rare trip with any complexity that a human map reader wouldn’t make a mistake or two. LLMs aren’t competing with perfect, they are competing with websites that may or may not be full of errors, or asking someone that may or may not know what they are talking about.
  - alpaca128 1y ago
    Worse - LLMs are competing with inconvenience, and inconvenience always loses.
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      That's literally the point of all progress, though.
      - alpaca128 1y ago
        No. The point of progress is to improve the outcome. Improved outcome does not always align with convenience, and this is one example. Critical thinking is inconvenient and does not scale, but it's very important for finding the truth. Technology that disincentivizes critical thought makes it easier to spread lies.
mdp2021 1y ago
> The simple ... No, improper phrasing. Correct disclaimer is, "The below engine is structurally unreliable". -- Comment, snipers. We cannot reply to unclear noise.
nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
> LLM providers should be more aggressive in educating users about their fallability since hallucinations can't ever be fully fixed, even if it means adding friction But they can't be as the whole premise of the boom is replacing human intellectual labor. They've said as much on many many occasions--see Anthropic's CEO going off about mass unemployment quite recently. How can the two of these co-exist?

tbrownaw 1y ago

> should be more aggressive in educating users about their fallability This might be an "experience is the best teacher" situation. It'd probably be pretty hard to invent a disclaimer that'd be as effective as getting bit.

minimaxir 1y ago
Unfortunately, getting bit in cases such as publishing misinformation or false legal citations waste everyone time, not just their own.

eddythompson80 1y ago

That doesn't really make sense. You either make the LLM provider liable for the output of the model, or you have the current model. The friction already exists. All these AI companies and cloud providers are running "censored models" and more censorship is added at every layer. What would more friction be here? more pop-ups? Doing the former basically means killing the model-hosting business. Companies could develop models, use them internally and give them to their employees, but no public APIs exists. Companies strike legally binding contracts to use/license each other models, but the general public doesn't have access to those without something that would mitigate the legal risk. Maybe years down the line, as attitudes soften, some companies would begin to push the boundaries. Automating the legal approval process, opening signups, etc.

minimaxir 1y ago
Yes, more popups, retention metrics be damned. Even 2 years since ChatGPT, many people still think it's omniscent which is what's causing trouble.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  I don't think more pop-ups solve anything. It'll just make a chrome extension called "ChatGPTAutoAccept" get popular. You think someone who is thinking it's omniscent will suddenly reconsider because a "reminder, this is dumb as shit" pop up keeps annoying them every 5 minutes?
- MaxikCZ 1y ago
  People who are suspectible to read AI slop as universal truth do so because they dont read much at all. I guess you would be surprised how huge amount of users dont bother to read anything at all: a popup only exists in a sense "how do I close this", which is being solved by clicking at the most visually distinct button. If you asked them what they clicked or what the popup was about, they look at you like you are crazy for even assuming they should know.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Hyperbole is as much of a problem. ChatGPT is not omniscient, but it's also not "dumb as shit", at least not across the board. LLMs got popular in big part because they provide unique, distinctly new value. This black and white assumption that because LLMs are not always giving probably correct answers therefore they are dangerous, reminds me of what the generation of my parents and teachers thought of Wikipedia when it became popular. The problems were different ("anyone can edit" vs. "hallucinates stuff"), but the mindset seems very similar.

neepi 1y ago

To be fair people are pretty damn unintelligent when it comes to verifying information. Despite my academic background I catch myself doing it all the time as well. However LLMs amplify this damage by sounding authoritative on everything and even worse being promoted as authoritative problem solvers for all domains with a small disclaimer. This double think is unacceptable. But if they made the disclaimer bigger then the AI market would collapse in about an hour much like people’s usage does when they don’t verify something and get shot by someone actually authoritative. This has happened at work a couple of times and caused some fairly high profile problems. Many people refuse to use it now. What we have is bullshit generator propped up by avoiding speaking the truth because the truth compromises the promoted utility. Classic bubble.

userbinator 1y ago

The disclaimer needs to be in bold red text at the top.

YetAnotherNick 1y ago

You are assuming that the people burnt by LLM responses doesn't know that ChatGPT can make mistakes?

camillomiller 1y ago

Remember when Apple was roasted to hell anytime Maps would push you to get a wrong turn? Or when Google Maps would take you to the wrong place at the wrong time (like a sketchy neighborhood)? Those were all news stories they had to do PR crisis management for. Now they slap a disclaimer like that and we’re all good to go. The amount of public opinion forgiveness these technologies are granted is disproportionate and disheartening.

arcanemachiner 1y ago
Yeah, but we're all used to having software integrated into our lives now. And we all now how shitty and broken software often is...
thejohnconway 1y ago
That always struck me as pretty overblown, given that before map apps, people got lost all the goddam time. It was a rare trip with any complexity that a human map reader wouldn’t make a mistake or two. LLMs aren’t competing with perfect, they are competing with websites that may or may not be full of errors, or asking someone that may or may not know what they are talking about.
- alpaca128 1y ago
  Worse - LLMs are competing with inconvenience, and inconvenience always loses.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    That's literally the point of all progress, though.
    - alpaca128 1y ago
      No. The point of progress is to improve the outcome. Improved outcome does not always align with convenience, and this is one example. Critical thinking is inconvenient and does not scale, but it's very important for finding the truth. Technology that disincentivizes critical thought makes it easier to spread lies.

mdp2021 1y ago

> The simple ... No, improper phrasing. Correct disclaimer is, "The below engine is structurally unreliable". -- Comment, snipers. We cannot reply to unclear noise.

nyarlathotep_ 1y ago

> LLM providers should be more aggressive in educating users about their fallability since hallucinations can't ever be fully fixed, even if it means adding friction But they can't be as the whole premise of the boom is replacing human intellectual labor. They've said as much on many many occasions--see Anthropic's CEO going off about mass unemployment quite recently. How can the two of these co-exist?