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

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#81

Post by barbariangrunge »

copperx wrote: post #12
my_usernam3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only give you an antidote of its dangers in a different category. My significant other, an otherwise very intelligent women, will ask ChatGPT health questions. She knows it might be wrong, but does it anyways to debug her health. I try to point out that even getting suggested a bad diagnosis is very dangerous. The advice it gives has way less nuanced than say the healthMD which has it owns flaws. And unlike cod…

It's always good to cross verify with a tool such as Isabel. Luckily, ChatGPT and Isabel almost always agree in my tests. https://symptomchecker.isabelhealthcare.com/

Chatgpt lies all the time with health questions, citing nonsense and making up explanations and diagnoses. I’m scared that anybody trusts it

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#82

Post by ChatGTP »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #80
ChatGTP wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch f…

…see: nuclear weapons

Yeah, what about them?

Sounds like you're placing all your hope in apathy, good luck with that.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#83

Post by npteljes »

ChatGTP wrote: post #78
Yiin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.

This argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch f…

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.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#84

Post by ChatGTP »

codeyperson wrote: post #72
ChatGTP wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he believed what he said, why would he put the thing on the internet with plugins? Why would he be helping to secure funding to build even more powerful models? If he believed it was truly dangerous, I don't think he'd be working for a company that is advertising they are actually pursuing super-intelligence ? Not saying you're wrong, but there is definitely some very noticeable dissonance in his messaging and in…

He's said in his interview on the Lex Fridman podcast, that he wants to get AI in front of people as fast as possible to give us the longest amount of time possible to start to adapt to it. I think he wants to scare people a little in a somewhat controlled way to onramp us to this new reality as fast as possible.

I'm not trying to be over cynical here, but what someone says and what someone does are entirely different things.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#85

Post by megapolitics »

flangola7 wrote: post #41
xcdzvyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?

Quacks like a duck, etc. NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built. Their rhetoric in the 30s was not as direct and violent as their later actions, that doesn't mean they weren't still Nazis.

>NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built.

The first concentration camp, Nohra, opened in 1933, the year the Nazis took power. The more well known Dachau was also opened that year.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#86

Post by NoTelnyxBad »

m3kw9 wrote: post #34
NoTelnyxBad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simple explanation: he believes what he said.

It’s also simple that he needed moat

I think there's something to the arguments that regulation will benefit OpenAI.

However, they shouldn't be overstated. OpenAI has had the obviously best LLMs for over 4 years now. They aren't a flash in the pan.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#87

Post by silisili »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #74
trafficante wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers. Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for…

> now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”

There's a pretty big difference in wanting sexually explicit material out of classrooms, and outright book bans...

I'd argue neither side has a stellar record today, but it's the other that's more speech stifling...

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#88

Post by cjbprime »

somenameforme wrote: post #57
cjbprime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of retrospectively-good predictions in there, but this was the one I undervalued the extent of: > We also have a bad habit of changing the definition of machine intelligence when a program gets really good to claim that the problem wasn’t really that hard in the first place We've done this so much recently that I'm now seeing rewritten definitions of "real" intelligence that most humans do not meet.

There's quite a rationale justification for the ever 'shifting goalposts.' When humans describe some milestone in the future as finally being "real AI", they're not really just describing that milestone, but the many adjacent capabilities that they expect that milestone to entail. But we're quite clever, and like any old metric needing to be juked, we invariably find ways to achieve the milestone while sidestepping a…

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 having any access to a Python interpreter and therefore having to simulate what one would do with my code, and despite my code not being in its training set.)

> especially one gifted with the ability for infinite perfect and complete recall.

You know that LLMs don't have this, right? There is no database they have access to containing their training data. They just have the weights that were optimized in response to seeing that training data.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#89

Post by cjbprime »

thomasfromcdnjs wrote: post #70
cjbprime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of retrospectively-good predictions in there, but this was the one I undervalued the extent of: > We also have a bad habit of changing the definition of machine intelligence when a program gets really good to claim that the problem wasn’t really that hard in the first place We've done this so much recently that I'm now seeing rewritten definitions of "real" intelligence that most humans do not meet.

> We've done this so much recently that I'm now seeing rewritten definitions of "real" intelligence that most humans do not meet. Love this sentiment, stealing it =)

:) I heard someone say "LLMs are just lossy compression algorithms" dismissively yesterday, and I would love to hear their understanding of what a brain does.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#90

Post by seydor »

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.

As we see, it already works
Post reply on HN