Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#121

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ChatGTP wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire I think the previous comment's point was this. You said "if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful...[you] don't think other countries will be...eager to deploy it" [1]. The comment responding to you said there is no precedent for that. Before you get super-intelligent humanity-destroying AI you may get merely-in…

I don't think this is true, if international co-operation can happen, not everyone will try to build these systems. My point is, everyone sits on the internet and screams but Russia, but China, but no one really knows what they think about the situation because no serious discussions have begun. I did see an interview with Geoffrey Hinton who says that he can see Chinese researchers are concerned, he reads it in mail…

> if international co-operation can happen

That’s the point. For a system such as this, it cannot. That’s just reality.

It gives advantage to have it, particularly when others don’t. Its development happens in silence, making enforcement uncertain. And you don’t want to get into a shooting match without it when your enemy does.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#122

Post by I_am_tiberius »

blharr wrote: post #98
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #95

ChatGPT is a privacy nightmare. When you disable "Chat history & training", this setting is stored client side in local storage. That means the setting gets lost when switching browser or deleting your browser cache. Also, when you disable "Chat history & training", plugins are not available to you as a paid user. I believe Sam Altman doesn't care about his users' privacy at all. I lost trust in him completely, when…

The plug-ins part makes total sense to me. I would reason that plug-ins can save your chat history and use them for their own data, so if you want to keep your privacy totally, plug-ins would ve disabled as well.

And what about Code interpreter?

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#123

Post by Tenoke »

andrewstuart wrote: post #7

Sam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.

> with science fiction

Because he doesn't believe it's Science Fiction, you are projecting.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#125

Post by cjbprime »

somenameforme wrote: post #94
cjbprime wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used GPT-4 significantly? I've had many experiences* of answers that, as far as I can tell, require strong reasoning skills and a world model. It is unreliable, as you say, but only demonstrating those skills a small fraction of the time would still be proof of their existence. *: (such as when GPT-4 describes what would be output by Python code that I write and feed it, if it was run, despite GPT-4 not havi…

What makes you think there isn't a limited interpreter, or an expert system effectively akin to an interpreter working behind the scenes? I think this is a fairly easy concept to test. Give it 'code' that is trivial to understand, but in a [hopefully] novel syntax that might also fuzz up guess-the-next-word. I just gave ChatGPT a prompt of: ------ "I'm working with a new computer language. What would be the output of…

> What makes you think there isn't a limited interpreter

Because OpenAI says there isn't, and there are open source LLMs which show the same (but less profound) ability.

> expert system effectively akin to an interpreter working behind the scenes?

You're describing reasoning again. No-one hardcoded an "expert system" for Python into ChatGPT. If it has become one, it is through reading about Python (and same for C#).

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#126

Post by xg15 »

andrewstuart wrote: post #7

Sam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.

I don't know if SA is an Effective Altruist, but it feels a bit like he got caught up in their weird logic of "AI will be an extinction-level threat to humanity - and the only way to address the threat is somehow to build exactly that AI".

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#127

Post by YellOh »

xg15 wrote: post #126
andrewstuart wrote: post #7

Sam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.

I don't know if SA is an Effective Altruist, but it feels a bit like he got caught up in their weird logic of "AI will be an extinction-level threat to humanity - and the only way to address the threat is somehow to build exactly that AI".

You can take Roko's Basilisk out of the community forum but you can't take Roko's Basilisk out of the community zeitgeist.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#128

Post by visarga »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #55
throwaway_ab wrote: post #54

Sam Altman has put a target on every AI company/researchers back with his constant fearmongering when he has spoken directly to the government. In his selfish efforts to build the ultimate moat around his company, Altman's attempt to get government regulation to stifle future competition might backfire. Whilst I'd normally say it would be satisfying to see Sam fail due to his selfishness unfortunately this laser focu…

I hope he succeeds, and stifles AI development. AI is too advanced for humans to use properly and it probably will end humanity. If the rest of the industry is brought down, I for one will be happy.

Nobody can do anything to stop AI progress, we are too interested in competing with each other to cooperate against AI.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#129

Post by ChatGTP »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #121
ChatGTP wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is true, if international co-operation can happen, not everyone will try to build these systems. My point is, everyone sits on the internet and screams but Russia, but China, but no one really knows what they think about the situation because no serious discussions have begun. I did see an interview with Geoffrey Hinton who says that he can see Chinese researchers are concerned, he reads it in mail…

> if international co-operation can happen That’s the point. For a system such as this, it cannot. That’s just reality. It gives advantage to have it, particularly when others don’t. Its development happens in silence, making enforcement uncertain. And you don’t want to get into a shooting match without it when your enemy does.

So just sit back and hope for the best?

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#130

Post by ChatGTP »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #116
npteljes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that other countries will happily explore the AI topic further, independent from the US. Regarding stupidity and hope, see how well we're doing with climate change, or environmental regulations.

I think instead of being pessimistic about the inevitability of disasters, we should try and prevent them. We're doing better than nothing about climate change, and we can keep trying to do more even though the damage is already great.

I too am surprised by the apathy angle on this forum.

"Nothing can be done, oh well..."

I guess this is when humans do actually lose their humanity and go extinct, if we just give up in the face of challenges, we're done.

Post reply on HN