775
Dad demands OpenAI delete ChatGPT’s false claim that he murdered his kids (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Norwegian man said he was horrified to discover that ChatGPT outputs had falsely accused him of murdering his own children.

According to a complaint filed Thursday by European Union digital rights advocates Noyb, Arve Hjalmar Holmen decided to see what information ChatGPT might provide if a user searched his name. He was shocked when ChatGPT responded with outputs falsely claiming that he was sentenced to 21 years in prison as "a convicted criminal who murdered two of his children and attempted to murder his third son," a Noyb press release said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah but I can just ignore the bullets because they are nerf. And I have my own nerf guns as well.

I mean at some point any analogy fails, but AI is nothing like a gun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They may seem like nerf when they first come out of the AI, but they turn into real bullets once they start filling people's heads with convincing enough lies and falsehoods, and those people start wielding their own weapons against minorities, democracy, and the government. If the election of Trump 2.0 has not convinced you of the immense danger of disinformation and misinformation, I have literally no idea how anything could ever possibly get through to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    That doesn't really change anything. The internet is full of AI slop and just people outright lying. Nothing is reliable any more outside of the word of an actual expert.

    This has been happening since before Trump. Hell Trump 45 was before the wave of truly capable AI.

    AI doesn't change this at all except people ought to know they are getting info from a bullshit source if they are getting it from AI themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    AI is a thing people choose to host and are responsible for the outcomes of its use. The internal working and limitations of the machine do not make the owners less responsible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay, so I agree with none of that, but you're saying as long as we host our own AI or rent our own processing from the cloud we're in the clear? I want to make sure that's your fundamental argument because that leaves all open models in the clear and frankly I could be down with that. I like AI but I'm not a huge fan of AI companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So insurance companies use AI to screen claims.

    It denies a claim for life saving intervention - person dies. Who is responsible for that? Historically it would be the insurance company - and worker. Would it be them or the AI company?

    Psych screening tools were using it to pre screen calls.

    Ai tells the person to kill themselves - who is at fault if they do it. Psych screener would lose their job and their license. What and who is impacted if AI does it.

    QA check on a car or product is passed by AI but should have failed.

    Thousands die before the recall. Who is at fault for it? The Company leveraging AI. Or the AI itself?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Company using AI for that shit is responsible. There is no responsible way to remove a human from there process. These aren't reasonable uses of AI no matter how bad companies want to save money by not hiring.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Yeah so any space where a caregiver or worker can get fined huge sums of money for not taking adequate action it should just be illegal for AI to inherit that space then?

    Because when I worked in the psych space if I was told XYand Z - I would need to act or as an individual face 30-100,000 dollars in fines.

    If it’s left to the company you will just see shell corps housing the AI client facing hub. That will dissolve when legal critical mass forms and costs now outweigh the revenue wins.

    “We formed LLC psych screen services, who will help our hospital team with mental health call volume!”

    “Psych screen LLC is facing 27 lawsuits and is committing bankruptcy!”

    “We formed LLC psych now using a different AI tool!”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure you get my point.

    If I'm proving a service, and that service is creating and publishing disparaging information about you, you should have recourse against me. I don't get off the hook just because of the way I've set up the technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Right. Well if your service is a well-known bullshiter I wouldn't give a fuck. That being said, I'd be happy to agree that AI should all be open source and self-hosted. I run local AI myself, but the quality isn't there. I'd have to rent time on a big boy machine if the big players went away. That would be a little inconvenient because I'd want to have a whole bunch of requests queued up to use maximum power over minimum time and that's not really how anyone uses AI.

    Maybe I could share that rental with other AI enthusiasts..... hmmm.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent