ChatGPT should be considered a malevolent AI – and be destroyed
theregister.com
theregister.com
My dude, I’m sorry you’re not important enough for the chat bot to correctly recite your entire life biography.
> Salve! Yukio Mishima fuit auctor et poeta Japonicus qui natus est in anno 1925 et mortuus est in anno 1970. Nomen eius verum erat Kimitake Hiraoka. Scripsit multos libros, quorum plures celebres sunt et internationale famam adepti sunt.
> Opus magnum Mishimae fuit tetralogia, cui nomen est "Sea of Fertility" quae constat ex libris quattuor: "Spring Snow," "Runaway Horses," "The Temple of Dawn," et "The Decay of the Angel." Inter libros Mishimae celeberrimi sunt "Confessions of a Mask," "Thirst for Love," et "The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea."
> Mishima erat etiam notus pro activismis suis politicis et socialibus, et obiit per seppukum (ritualis suicidium samurai) postquam tentavit militares et alios ad se adiungendum ad restaurandam imperium Iaponicum.
Seems accurate enough though the mentioned titles aren't originally English, of course.
I assumed it was well known. I’m also never going to use /s because I’m fine with the consequences of not ruining a joke.
If you don’t mind me complaining, then here is another thing that bugs me: people worrying about AGI, and then conflating ChatGPT (or other LLMs) with AGI. In my opinion (and I have mostly worked as a paid AI practitioner since 1982), AGI may be developed in a few decades, but it will be something new. Perhaps transformer models will play a part in eventual AGI systems, but I think it would be a small part.
It's either that or "I hit my toe on my bed post, my bed should be considered malevolent and be destroyed."
There are practical, obvious differences between stubbing your toe and something that’s loosely aligned yet probably capable of convincing people en masse to do actions in the real world (or will be soon, at best). If your word games contradict the plainly obvious fact, it’s a good sign your words are just failing you.
“Malevolent” is a perfectly understandable stand-in for “non-sentient yet active agent with apparently negative valence”
Maybe not. The fast way to find the solution to a question on internet is baiting your fishhook with a false answer to trigger an emotional correcting burst. The more emotional, the better.
I speculate that the algorithms could easily suspect some kind of relationship between somebody asking for an obscure figure, and the name provided. If the bot can't find enough data, the human is its better chance to provide some clues. Going silent is a bad strategy to keep the human engaged. To keep the human interest it must say something. Anything. Applying "social hacking" on the human has a good chance of being feed with the correct answer.
In this case the trick worked like a charm (again). The bot received not only much more feedback, but also recruited more humans as a bonus.
You’ve got to calibrate it if you want the right answer not to be drowned in a sea of abuse, if it is presented at all. You can easily have the bait be too emotional.
RNG or "temperature"
You ask to hallucinate a bio, non-trivial percentage of people with bios are dead, decent chance the fever dream generated ends with dead and obits in plausible places.
This thing is a magic 8 ball with billions of phrases, it picks continuations based on probabilities and a random number to mix it up a bit for freshness or 'creativity'.
Smart people believe horoscopes and psychic cold readings. Smart people are fooled.
They are a bunch of glorified statistical modes. You type something, they use a statistical model to decide what to look up, then they use a statistical model to weigh the importance/relevance of each thing they find, then they use a statistical model to make the answer text look like a human answer according to a statistical mode they built.
That’s why the happily produce incorrect answers “made to look real”: it’s just Google with a prose engine in front of it, and for some reason people now think webmd etc are more accurate because the response has been laundered through that engine.
When are we just creating something intelligent and "sentient" but incoherent?
Explaining how ML works doesn’t change its behaviours or its effects.
Now, OP's got a point: advanced LLM-based tools are moving extremely fast into our daily toolchain, in creative and unexpected ways, with minimal moderation and no supervision. It's not about its failures being a reliable knowledge base, but at how keen some of us are willing to hand the keys to their bash prompt to an statistical "perplexed" system with rand() bolted on in more than a couple places.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35007071
The dupe detector does not seem to work consistently.
It's like kids playing with detonator caps.
The first introduction to the concept of an AI gone rogue was Eve, when she bit that apple. We all need a starting point.
sigh…………
/r/IdiotsFightingThings
Unfortunately I fear that there will be regulatory intervention to placate the concern-trolls. Better prepare...
It's a fancy autocomplete, not a sentient being FFS
It doesn’t know who you are. It’s a markov chain. There’s no thoughts there.
They are part of how people anthropomorphize ChatGPT, but in this case the metaphor is misleading, not helpful.
ROFLMAO
This is the funniest anti-AI sentence I’ve read so far.
> > Yes, here is the link to Alexander Hanff's obituary on The Guardian's website: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/22/alexander...
> Now ChatGPT was outputting fake links to articles that have never existed - why?
> [...] then it doubled down on the lie, and next fabricated fake URLs to supposed obituaries to support its previous response, but why? Self preservation
To quote the FAQ page: "ChatGPT has no external capabilities and cannot complete lookups. This means that it cannot access the internet, search engines, databases, or any other sources of information outside of its own model. It cannot verify facts, provide references, or perform calculations or translations." If you ask it for a link or some specific information that didn't appear often enough to get memorized, it'll give a plausible guess as to what that would be.
There's a problem if people are expecting it to be an oracle of absolute truth. You do get a pop-up warning on first use and a "Limitations" list at the top of each new chat, but it's easy enough for people to miss/ignore.
> Imagine had one of my children or other family members gone to Microsoft’s Bing implementation of ChatGPT and asked it about me and had received the same response?
Bing's chat mode can look up sources and is instructed to only use information from those sources. Not that it's perfect, but it is at least designed for this type of problem and lists the real sources for you to check.
> For example, under such a definition it would be perfectly fine for an AI to kill a person infected with a serious infectious virus as that would be considered as minimizing the harm. But would we, as a civilized society, accept that killing one person in this situation would be a simple case of the ends justifies the means? One would hope not as civilized societies take the position that all lives are equal and we all have the right to life - in fact it is enshrined in our international and national laws as one of our human rights.
If the implied situation is that killing one person is the only way to stop the deaths of many people (however contrived the scenario has to be to allow only these two choices), I think many people would accept the killing of one person. "All lives are equal" doesn't mean one life is equal to 1000 lives.