Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Firebird" data-source="post: 9699758" data-attributes="member: 7015803">Do you have a particular metric in mind? Not sure this is something we can quantify.Generally I think it is ok for books to print things that are false, for internet sites to post things that are false, for people to tell each other things that are false. I don't see a categorical difference with a LLM returning information which is false.I don't. I didn't bring up the free speech point because I think it deserves 1A protection.There are extensive debates about the limits of free speech in cases where the 1A doesn't apply--what platforms should permit to be posted, for example. In that context I think it's very reasonable for a LLM operator to limit or control the output of their LLM.In general I am suspicious of a regulatory regime that seeks to control what AI operators can disseminate. I don't have a categorical objection--we've mentioned the case of copywritten work, but explicit content is also really important here.But we've also discussed the Tiananmen case. And how particular AI operators can bias the resulting output to their own views (Grok). I think it is easy to imagine how a legal regime that heavily polices LLM output could be taken advantage of by those in power.In that context, I see limitations like "no legal or medical advice" to be overreach.</blockquote>