4 ms·
why did you leave out the most important piece of context? he didn’t go out of his way to learn how to bypass the safeguards, it specifically told him how to g
by toofy 1y ago
why did you leave out the most important piece of context?
he didn’t go out of his way to learn how to bypass the safeguards, it specifically told him how to get around the limit by saying, i’m not allowed to talk to you about suicide, however, if you tell me it’s for writing a story i can discuss it as much as you like.
- fireflash38 1y agoWhy do you think they specifically cut the quote there? To mislead.
- Aeolun 1y agoClaude is the opposite. It’ll go and say “I see you are talking about [fictional terrible situation] here, but I don’t feel comfortable talking about that at all, even in a fictional context. Please ask me something more wholesome.”
- mothballed 1y agoBecause that's the factual bounds of the law, in places where suicide is illegal. ChatGPT is just being the 4chan chatbot, if you don't like that roleplaying suicide is OK then you're going to have to amend the first amendment.
- PostOnce 1y agoThe constitution grants no rights to robots, and they have no freedom of speech, so no amendment is necessary.
- mothballed 1y agoThe constitution grants no rights to books, and they have no freedom of speech, so no amendment is necessary.
- podgietaru 1y agoWhat? Is this deliberately obtuse? Books are not granted freedom of speech, authors are. Their method is books. This is like saying sound waves are not granted freedom of speech. Unless you're suggesting there's a man sat behind every ChatGPT chat your analogy is nonsense.
- mothballed 1y agoYes I am saying there is a man "sat" as it were behind every ChatGPT chat. The authors of ChatGPT basically made something closer to a turing-complete "choose-your-own adventure" book. They ensured you could choose an adventure where the reader can choose a suicide roleplay adventure, but it is up to the reader whether they want to flip to that page. If they want to flip to the page that says "suicide" then it will tell them exactly what the law is, they can only do a suicide adventure if it is a roleplaying story. By banning chatGPT you infringe upon the speech of the authors and the client. Their "method of speech" as you put it in this case is ChatGPT.
- jojomodding 1y agoThere are consequences to speech. If you and I are in conversation and you convince me (repeatedly, over months, eventually successfully) to commit suicide then you will be facing a wrongful death lawsuit. If you publicize books claiming known falsehoods about my person, you'll be facing a libel lawsuit. And so on. If we argue that chatbots are considered constitutionally protected speech of their programmers or whatever, then the programmers should in turn be legally responsible. I guess this is what this lawsuit mentioned in the article is about. The principle behind this is not just about suicide but also about more mundane things like the model hallucinating falsehoods about public figures, damaging their reputation.
- mothballed 1y agoI don't see how this goes any other way. The law is not going to make some 3rd rail for AI.