6 ms·
> We’re building an age-prediction system to estimate age based on how people use ChatGPT. If there is doubt, we’ll play it safe and default to the under-18 exp
by kouteiheika 1y ago
> We’re building an age-prediction system to estimate age based on how people use ChatGPT. If there is doubt, we’ll play it safe and default to the under-18 experience. In some cases or countries we may also ask for an ID
Yay, more unreliable AI that will misclassify users, either letting children access content they shouldn't, or ban adults until they give up their privacy and give their ID to the Big Brother.
> we will attempt to contact the users’ parents and if unable, will contact the authorities in case of imminent harm
Oh, even better, so if the AI misclassifies me it will automatically call the cops on me? And how long before this is expanded to other forms of wrongthink? Sure, let's normalize these kinds of systems where authorities are notified about what you're doing privately, definitely not a slippery slope that won't get people in power salivating about the new possibilities given by such a system.
> “Treat our adult users like adults” is how we talk about this internally
Suuure, maybe I would have believed it if ChatGPT wasn't so ridiculously censored already; this sounds like post-hoc rationalization to cover their asses and not something that they've always believed in. Their models were always incredibly patronizing and censored.
One fun anecdote I have: I still remember the day when I first got access to DALL-E and asked it to generate me an image in "soviet style", and got my request blocked and a big fat warning threatening me with a ban because apparently "soviet" is a naughty word. They always erred very strongly on the side of heavy-handed filtering and censorship; even their most recently released gpt-oss model has become a meme in the local LLM community due to how often it refuses.
- arccy 1y agois it privately when you're interacting with someone else's systems?
- kouteiheika 1y agoI don't see how that's relevant. When I'm making a phone call I'm also interacting with hundreds of systems that are not mine; do I not have the right to keep my conversation private? Even the blog post here says that "It is extremely important to us, and to society, that the right to privacy in the use of AI is protected. People talk to AI about increasingly personal things", and that's one of the few parts that I actually agree with.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoYou're interacting with hundreds of systems whose job it is to simply transit your information. Privacy there makes sense. However, you're also talking to someone on the other end of all those systems. Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private?
- sophacles 1y agoIn many circumstances yes. When I'm talking to my doctor, or lawyer, or bank. When there's a signed NDA. And so on. There are circumstances where the other person can be (and is) obliged to maintain privacy. One of those is interacting with an AI system where the terms of service guarantee privacy.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoYes, but there are also times when other factors are more important than privacy. If you tell your doctor you're going to go home and kill your wife, they are ethically bound to report you to the police, despite your right of doctor patient confidentiality. Which is similar to what openai says here about "imminent harm"
- kouteiheika 1y agoAn AI chatbot is not a person, and you're not talking to anyone; you're querying a (fancy) automated system. I fundamentally disagree that those queries should not be guaranteed private. Here's a thought experiment: you're a gay person living in a country where being gay is illegal and results in a death penalty. You use ChatGPT in a way which makes your sexuality apparent; should OpenAI be allowed to share this query with anyone? Should they be allowed to store it? What if it inadvertently leaks (which has happened before!), or their database gets hacked and dumped, and now the morality police of your country are combing through it looking for criminals like you? Privacy is a fundamental right of every human being; I will gladly die on this hill.
- nine_k 1y ago
- mhuffman 1y ago>Yay, more unreliable AI that will misclassify users, either letting children access content they shouldn't, or ban adults until they give up their privacy and give their ID to the Big Brother. Or maybe, deep in the terms and conditions, it will add you to Altman's shitcoin company[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
- arresin 1y agoNever forget about world coin when thinking about Altman and what he will do with power.
- mhuffman 1y agoI am positive that is final intent with world coin is a global ID system that he can market to governments and businesses. We have seen what he is about and he is not a person that needs to have that type of business.
- vmg12 1y agoIf you were honest in your critique the people you should be criticizing are the "think of the children" types, many of which also use hackernews (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45026886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45026886). There is immense societal pressure to de-anonymize the internet, I find the arguments from both sides compelling (for the deanonymization part I think it's compelling for at least parts of the internet).
- astrobe_ 1y agoIf we want to protect kids/teens, why not create an "Internet for kids" with a specific TLD, and the owner of this TLD would only accept sites that adhere to specific guidelines (moderation, no adult content, advertisement...)? Then devices could have a one-button config that restricts it to that TLD.
- vmg12 1y agoI'm not suggesting solutions to any of these things, I'm also not one of the "think of the kids" people.
- dizlexic 1y agoWhy have I never heard this idea, you're a genius. Can we ship this next week? This current approach is a net negative, but the TLD idea actually makes sense to me.
- thfuran 1y agoAnd as long as kids don't know about DNS, it might even work.
- dizlexic 1y agoMeh can be implemented at many different levels.
- astrobe_ 1y agoWell, in this scenario the user isn't supposed to have access to the (DNS) configuration. But one could still enter a raw IP address in the browser - e.g. a friend who has an unlocked device could ping the site to get it. But if one accesses a website by IP, since the links and the Ajax often need DNS resolution (CDNs etc.), the content will probably be blocked for the most part. Like copy protection, the scheme is probably not entirely waterproof, but it can nonetheless act as a deterrent.
- lawn 1y ago> Oh, even better, so if the AI misclassifies me it will automatically call the cops on me? How long will it take for someone to accidentally SWAT themselves?
- chris_wot 1y agoGotta love the "if an under-18 user is having suicidal ideation, we will attempt to contact the users’ parents and if unable, will contact the authorities in case of imminent harm." Oh brilliant. The same authorities around the world that regularly injure or kill the mentally ill? Or parents that might be abusing their child? What a wonderful initiative!
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoSwatting by AI. The future is amazing.
- citizenpaul 1y agoEven if they could do this (they can't) they won't. Its just a scare tactic to start getting users to show ID so openAI can become the defacto data broker company.
- ratmeadow 1y agoMaybe we don't have to worry about AI chatbots taking over because they will end up so censored/policed that no one will/can use them. Can't use AI if you're too young, too old, have any medical issues, have the wrong political beliefs, are religious, live in the wrong country, etc etc. (By "can't use" I mean either you're explicitly banned, or the chance of being reported to the authorities is so high that no one risks it.)
- tempodox 1y agoJust seeing those words, “safety”, “freedom”, “privacy”, being used by a company like OpenAI already rang every available alarm bell for me, and their announcement indeed fulfills every expectation of bad. They really are experts in making the world a worse place.
- citizenpaul 1y agoI can't wait to hear Ed zittrons rant on this. OpenAI just showed their hand. They have no path to profitability so they are going to the data broker well lol.