AI Incident Database • Hacker News Board

Re: AI Incident Database

#111

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 7:20 AM UTC

tough wrote: post #26

dr_dshiv wrote: post #22

I had a new GPT4 chat in ChatGPT today say material that was very explicitly based in another chat. It isn’t supposed to know about other conversations, right? Specifically, I had been asking about the difference between knowledge and understanding in another chat. Then I started another chat where I copied and pasted material from an earlier chat about factors of wellbeing. The response didn’t have anything to do wi…

Could also be just a random occurrence that seems significant to you without more data points, interesting anecdote none-the-less will be looking for it in my prompts

[deleted]

Re: AI Incident Database

#112

Post by n4r9 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 8:54 AM UTC

Imnimo wrote: post #64

n4r9 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on that quote it sounds like the crowdsourcing was used to analyse the locations in order to show the bias. The claim is that AI was used to determine the locations on the first place. If I recall rightly the Pokémon Go locations were derived in part from an earlier (and far better) game called Ingress. Players could submit candidate locations, but it's possible that this was mostly ignored, and/or some form of…

It's possible, but the longer description makes it sound like the source of the issue was that the locations were crowd-sourced from a biased sample: >The game creator Niantic Labs revealed that the Pokemon Go map was derived from a previous augmented reality game, Ingress. Ingress crowdsourced its map from users, who tended to be young, male, white, and English-speaking. Similarly, from the attached article: >"It tu…

Yeah I went to the report on the website and I agree. It seems like they're using a really broad interpretation of "AI" which includes "anything with augmented reality".

Re: AI Incident Database

#113

Post by throwaway290 » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 11:34 AM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #101

throwaway290 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible unless they publish scraper IP ranges...

Well, it's not exactly impossible (you can spot the spiders fairly easily in your access logs), but it is certainly weak sauce.

I want to allow good spiders but not these, how do you differentiate them in access logs?

Re: AI Incident Database

#114

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 4:01 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #113

JohnFen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's not exactly impossible (you can spot the spiders fairly easily in your access logs), but it is certainly weak sauce.

I want to allow good spiders but not these, how do you differentiate them in access logs?

That's not a use case I've put any thought into, honestly, but if I assume the "good spiders" are well-behaved, you should be able to identify them based on their user agent string. Or perhaps you can nail down what IP ranges the good spiders are coming from and allow them based on that.

Re: AI Incident Database

#115

Post by fennecfoxy » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

Looks like most of these are good old "misuse of a tool" problems, nothing to do with the AI/ML itself.

Could just as easily create an allegory to American gun ownership and the misuse (loaded while cleaning, leaving them around children) attributed to the guns themselves, when really the blame should be attributed to the people that proliferate the guns and change laws so that anybody can have one.

Are we trying to say now that access to AI/ML should be restricted to those who are trained in the area and know how to use it as a tool without allowing it to cause harm? Probably about as likely as America changing its aforementioned gun laws.