181–190 of 284 posts
> All suggestions are welcome. Monetize it! Evil answer: Partner with an advertiser and sell https://api.opencagedata.com/geocode/v1/json as an ad space. This may be the first opportunity for an application/json-encoded advertisement. Nice answer: Partner with an actual phone lookup platform and respond with a 301 Moved Permanently at the endpoint.
> All suggestions are welcome. Monetize it! Evil answer: Partner with an advertiser and sell https://api.opencagedata.com/geocode/v1/json as an ad space. This may be the first opportunity for an application/json-encoded advertisement. Nice answer: Partner with an actual phone lookup platform and respond with a 301 Moved Permanently at the endpoint.
Is ChatGPT so advanced that it just predicted the future? The thought experiment with this is trippy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you go about reliably providing the location of someone's mobile phone without being their cell phone carrier?
By partnering with said cell phone carriers. But I hope it would be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, based on the BS these LLMs spout and companies start pivoting. The govts should start writing laws?
On what basis? How would you write it? Why don't existing laws cover this? Is there a law that covers incorrect information in Wikipedia? or a search result?
Machine-generated lies have only recently become consistently convincing enough that they create these types of problems.
In fact, that's the major innovation of ChatGPT: it's not that it creates "good" text, it's that it creates incredibly convincing lies. It's a scalable version of a Wikipedia vandal.
ChatGPT very convincingly recommends us for a service we don't provide. Dozens of people are signing up to our site every day, then getting frustrated when "it doesn't work". Please do NOT trust the nonsense ChatGPT spits out.
A new market opportunity for your company?
If this was new market opportunity, just publishing a falsehood would do the same job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would this work? If a phone number is for a mobile phone then looking up the location doesn't make sense at all: mobile phones are mobile. I guess you could try and crawl an index of business phone numbers and associate those with the listed address for businesses, but that's a completely different business from running a geocoder. You could provide a bit of geographical information about the first three digits o…
Phone numbers have geographic structure. For mobile phones it's just the area code, but for landlines there is also information in the exchange portion. For example, I grew up in Medford MA which is 781-39x-xxxx. I expect there are also patterns in other countries?
Other countries work in much the same way, except the prefixes are, of course, different.
Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. I am hoping that in a year from now people will be more skeptical of what they hear from conversational AI. But perhaps that is optimistic of me.
> Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. It’s worse than that. It’s wrong, you cannot correct it and it makes up supporting citations on the fly. Very few humans behave like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what basis? How would you write it? Why don't existing laws cover this? Is there a law that covers incorrect information in Wikipedia? or a search result?
> Why don't existing laws cover this? Machine-generated lies have only recently become consistently convincing enough that they create these types of problems. In fact, that's the major innovation of ChatGPT: it's not that it creates "good" text, it's that it creates incredibly convincing lies. It's a scalable version of a Wikipedia vandal.
What's more, the blog post is claiming that GPT was trained on video material (which it wasn't) which is also incorrect information and is apparently convincing enough to cause people to get up in arms about the product of yet another company.
The combination of issues of (a) people are using a language model as a knowledge base, (b) incorrect information exists out there on the net, and (c) people are assuming that the knowledge base is correct and not reading the documentation before singing up.
Alternatively, would you say that humans posting information that is incorrect and falsely represents the capabilities of another company's product should be similarly covered in laws?
Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. I am hoping that in a year from now people will be more skeptical of what they hear from conversational AI. But perhaps that is optimistic of me.
> Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. It’s worse than that. It’s wrong, you cannot correct it and it makes up supporting citations on the fly. Very few humans behave like that.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/...