ChatGPT lies then gaslights reporter with fake transcript

[gnarlygninja]

Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone. I agree that blame isn't constructive in this case, especially when most people who might do the blaming also interact with businesses and services that use AI.

Where's that line in terms of being able to claim the high road here? Is someone who uses ChatGPT worthy of blame for adding to the suffering in the world, while someone else who simply interacts with AI chat bots to change an airline ticket or to ask their credit card company a question immune to blame? Isn't someone who chooses to buy food from a grocery store that implements AI at least deserving of a tiny bit of blame? How about if they purchase canned goods or frozen foods from a company that used AI robotics to package the food in a manufacturing plant?

How much voluntary interaction with AI tools does it take to become one of the thoughtless people who uses AI?

Here's a rule of thumb: if you ever find yourself using 'yet you also participate in society, curious' to defend something you're doing, you're wrong.

 

[Morrus]

Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone. I agree that blame isn't constructive in this case, especially when most people who might do the blaming also interact with businesses and services that use AI.

Where's that line in terms of being able to claim the high road here? Is someone who uses ChatGPT worthy of blame for adding to the suffering in the world, while someone else who simply interacts with AI chat bots to change an airline ticket or to ask their credit card company a question immune to blame? Isn't someone who chooses to buy food from a grocery store that implements AI at least deserving of a tiny bit of blame? How about if they purchase canned goods or frozen foods from a company that used AI robotics to package the food in a manufacturing plant?

What's your point here? That all morality exists on a scale, therefore morality does not apply? That there's always somebody even less ethical, so it doesn't matter? I don't get where you're going with this bizarre line of reasoning. Is it OK if I steal your wallet because somebody once robbed a bank?

There are no objective lines, obviously. Other than those defined by law. And you know that, so asking for them is kinda disingenuous.

Everybody does whatever (legal) things they want, and everybody else is entitled to have an opinion on the ethics of those actions. But, again, I feel sure you know that. So I remain mystified as to where you're going with this?

 

[kermit4karate]

What's your point here? That all morality exists on a scale, therefore morality does not apply? That there's always somebody even less ethical, so it doesn't matter? I don't get where you're going with this bizarre line of reasoning. Is it OK if I steal your wallet because somebody once robbed a bank?

There are no objective lines, obviously. Other than those defined by law. And you know that, so asking for them is kinda disingenuous.

Everybody does whatever (legal) things they want, and everybody else is entitled to have an opinion on the ethics of those actions. But, again, I feel sure you know that. So I remain mystified as to where you're going with this?

How can you be both mystified as to where I'm going with it, but also think you know my motives? Aren't you being disingenuous by pretending to be mystified?

Why everyone is so dang rude about all this is more disappointing to me than any concerns I have about AI, of which I do have many.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And if you don’t trust the NGO’s to fairly define and apply the labels? Say they define the label qualifications in such a way as to eliminate competition from their preferred businesses by tailoring the label so their preferred business can use it while placing restrictions on it so many of those businesses competitors cannot.

At the point where you can trust neither the government, nor the NGO, nor the companies themselves to ensure correct information, then you should forego having a non-verifiable criterion to guide your purchasing habits. If I had no way to know if a product had quality X, I most probably wouldn't use X-ness has a deciding factor of purchase (too risky). At which point, Akerlof (another fraggle) teaches us what happens.

 

[Morrus]

How can you be both mystified as to where I'm going with it, but also think you know my motives?

I don't think I know your motives. That's why I asked.

Unless you're referring to the two things I assumed you knew--that there is no objective morality line, and that everybody is entitled to an opinion. I can't think of any other way I could be interpreted as "knowing your motives". They're things I hold to be self-evident and universally obvious. Are you saying you don't know those things? Because that changes the nature of conversation with you drastically.

Aren't you being disingenuous by pretending to be mystified?

Nope, I'm mystified. I literally do not know what you are doing. And I'm using literally correctly there.

Why everyone is so dang rude about all this is more disappointing to me than any concerns I have about AI, of which I do have many.

We're not being rude. We're challenging what appear to be bewildering, nonsensical arguments. We're responding to you with the same energy you are putting out. Which, apparently, you don't like.

When one finds oneself asking "why is everybody...." it often behooves one to wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's not everybody else.

 

[FrogReaver]

At the point where you can trust neither the government, nor the NGO, nor the companies themselves to ensure correct information, then you should forego having a non-verifiable criterion to guide your purchasing habits. If I had no way to know if a product had quality X, I most probably wouldn't use X-ness has a deciding factor of purchase (too risky). At which point, Akerlof (another fraggle) teaches us what happens.

IMO. There’s a simpler way. Use the best information you have available while always remaining a bit skeptical so you stay open to new information.

 

[FrogReaver]

How can you be both mystified as to where I'm going with it, but also think you know my motives? Aren't you being disingenuous by pretending to be mystified?

Why everyone is so dang rude about all this is more disappointing to me than any concerns I have about AI, of which I do have many.

Par for course

 

[Clint_L]

Blame? Oh, there is sooooo much blame to go around.
We can blame the dunderhead who made the tool, for not considering the knock-on effects.
We can blame the greedy executives who chose to try to make profit off the tool at the expense of those harmed by it.
We can blame the shoddy tool for being a piece of junk.
We can blame the thoughtless person who uses the tool, for willfully adding to the suffering in the world.

But, in the end, if you want to keep people safe from harm, blame isn't constructive! Understanding the situation, and putting well-considered controls on the tools, the people, or both, may be constructive.

So much this. Though I would go further and say that not only is blame not constructive, it’s usually the opposite. The need to make complicated problems into moral or ideological conflicts with heroes we can praise and villains we can blame often prevents us from solving the problem itself.

 

[dragoner]

Seems relevant to the discussion:

Bank of England Warns of Impending AI Disaster

The Bank of England has sounded the alarm, warning of an intensifying risk of a "sudden correction" due to an AI spending frenzy.

futurism.com