A shocking story was promoted on the “front page” or main feed of Elon Musk’s X on Thursday:
“Iran Strikes Tel Aviv with Heavy Missiles,” read the headline.
This would certainly be a worrying world news development. Earlier that week, Israel had conducted an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing two generals as well as other officers. Retaliation from Iran seemed like a plausible occurrence.
But, there was one major problem: Iran did not attack Israel. The headline was fake.
Even more concerning, the fake headline was apparently generated by X’s own official AI chatbot, Grok, and then promoted by X’s trending news product, Explore, on the very first day of an updated version of the feature.
People who deploy AI should be held responsible for the slander and defamation the AI causes.
how is it fear mongering when shit like this is happening? AI as it stands is unregulated and will continue to cause issues if left this way
Well if you read OpenAI’s terms of service, there’s an indemnification clause in there.
Basically if you get ChatGPT to say something defaming/libellous and then post it, you would foot the legal bill for any lawsuits that may arise from your screenshot of what their LLM produced.
I wonder how legislation is going to evolve to handle AI. Brazilian law would punish a newspaper or social media platform claiming that Iran just attacked Israel - this is dangerous information that could affect somebody’s life.
If it were up to me, if your AI hallucinated some dangerous information and provided it to users, you’re personally responsible. I bet if such a law existed in less than a month all those AI developers would very quickly abandon the “oh no you see it’s impossible to completely avoid hallucinations for you see the math is just too complex tee hee” and would actually fix this.
I bet if such a law existed in less than a month all those AI developers would very quickly abandon the “oh no you see it’s impossible to completely avoid hallucinations for you see the math is just too complex tee hee” and would actually fix this.
Nah, this problem is actually too hard to solve with LLMs. They don’t have any structure or understanding of what they’re saying so there’s no way to write better guardrails… Unless you build some other system that tries to make sense of what the LLM says, but that approaches the difficulty of just building an intelligent agent in the first place.
So no, if this law came into effect, people would just stop using AI. It’s too cavalier. And imo, they probably should stop for cases like this unless it has direct human oversight of everything coming out of it. Which also, probably just wouldn’t happen.
Yep. To add on, this is exactly what all the “AI haters” (myself included) are going on about when they say stuff like there isn’t any logic or understanding behind LLMs, or when they say they are stochastic parrots.
LLMs are incredibly good at generating text that works grammatically and reads like it was put together by someone knowledgable and confident, but they have no concept of “truth” or reality. They just have a ton of absurdly complicated technical data about how words/phrases/sentences are related to each other on a structural basis. It’s all just really complicated math about how text is put together. It’s absolutely amazing, but it is also literally and technologically impossible for that to spontaneously coelesce into reason/logic/sentience.
Turns out that if you get enough of that data together, it makes a very convincing appearance of logic and reason. But it’s only an appearance.
You can’t duct tape enough speak and spells together to rival the mass of the Sun and have it somehow just become something that outputs a believable human voice.
For an incredibly long time, ChatGPT would fail questions along the lines of “What’s heavier, a pound of feathers or three pounds of steel?” because it had seen the normal variation of the riddle with equal weights so many times. It has no concept of one being smaller than three. It just “knows” the pattern of the “correct” response.
It no longer fails that “trick”, but there’s significant evidence that OpenAI has set up custom handling for that riddle over top of the actual LLM, as it doesn’t take much work to find similar ways to trip it up by using slightly modified versions of classic riddles.
A lot of supporters will counter “Well I just ask it to tell the truth, or tell it that it’s wrong, and it corrects itself”, but I’ve seen plenty of anecdotes in the opposite direction, with ChatGPT insisting that it’s hallucination was fact. It doesn’t have any concept of true or false.
The shame of it is that despite this limitation LLMs have very real practical uses that, much like cryptocurrencies and NFTs did to blockchain, are being undercut by hucksters.
Tesla has done the same thing with autonomous driving too. They claimed to be something they’re not (fanboys don’t @ me about semantics) and made the REAL thing less trusted and take even longer to come to market.
Drives me crazy.
I love that example. Microsoft’s Copilot (based on GTP-4) immediately doesn’t disappoint:
It’s annoying that for many things, like basic programming tasks, it manages to generate reasonable output that is good enough to goat people into trusting it, yet hallucinates very obviously wrong stuff or follows completely insane approaches on anything off the beaten path. Every other day, I have to spend an hour to justify to a coworker why I wrote code this way when the AI has given him another “great” suggestion, like opening a hidden window with an UI control to query a database instead of going through our ORM.
but it is also literally and technologically impossible for that to spontaneously coelesce into reason/logic/sentience
Yeah, see, one very popular modern religion (without official status or need for one to explicitly identify with id, but really influential) is exactly about “a wonderful invention” spontaneously emerging in the hands of some “genius” who “thinks differently”.
Most people put this idea far above reaching your goal after making myriad of small steps, not skipping a single one.
They also want a magic wand.
The fans of “AI” today are deep inside simply luddites. They want some new magic to emerge to destroy the magic they fear.
Yep the hallucinations issue happens even in GPT4, in my experience certain topics can bring about potential hallucinations more than others but if ChatGPT (even with GPT4 or whatever other advanced version of it) gets “stuck” on believing its hallucinations the only way to convince it is literally plainly stating the part that’s wrong and directing it to search Bing or the internet some other way specifically for that. Otherwise you just let out a sigh and start a new chat. If you spend too much time negotiating with it that wastes tokens anyway so the chat becomes bloated and it forgets stuff from earlier in the chat, not to mention technically you’re paying for being able to use the more advanced model anyway and yeah basically the more you treat the chat like a normal conversation the worse it is with AI. I guess that’s why “prompt engineering” was or is a thing, whether legitimate or not.
I did also importantly note that if you pay for credits with OpenAI to use their “playground” to create a specifically customized GPT4 adjusting temperature and response types it takes getting used to because it is WAY different than ChatGPT regardless of which version of GPT you have it set to. It actually kind of blew me away with how much better it “””understood””” software development but the issue is you kind of have to set up chats yourself it’s more complex and you pay per token so mistakes cost you. If it wasn’t such a pain and I had a specific use case I would definitely rather pay for OpenAI credits as needed than their bs “Plus” $20/month subscription for nerfed GPT4 as a chatbot.
It’s absolutely amazing, but it is also literally and technologically impossible for that to spontaneously coelesce into reason/logic/sentience.
This is not true. If you train these models on game of Othello, they’ll keep a state of the world internally and use that to predict the next move played (1). To execute addition and multiplication they are executing an algorithm on which they were not explicitly trained (although the gpt family is surprisingly bad at it, due to a badly designed tokenizer).
These models are still pretty bad at most reasoning tasks. But training on predicting the next word is a perfectly valid strategy, after all the best way to predict what comes after the “=” in 1432 + 212 = is to do the addition.
So no, if this law came into effect, people would just stop using AI. And imo, they probably should stop for cases like this unless it has direct human oversight of everything coming out of it.
Then you and I agree. If AI can be advertised as a source of information but at the same time can’t provide safeguarded information, then there should not be commercial AI. Build tools to help video editing, remove backgrounds from photos, go nuts, but do not position yourself as a source of information.
Though if fixing AI is at all possible, even if we predict it will only happen after decades of technology improvements, it for sure won’t happen if we are complacent and do not add such legislative restrictions.
Unless you build some other system that tries to make sense of what the LLM says, but that approaches the difficulty of just building an intelligent agent in the first place.
I actually think an attempt at such an agent would have to include the junk generator. And some logical structure with weights and feedbacks it would form on top of that junk would be something easier for me to call “AI”.
I actually have been thinking about this some, and all those “jobs” that people are losing to AI? Will probably end up being jobs that add a human component back into AI for the firms that have doubled down on it. Human oversight is going to be necessary and these companies don’t want to admit that. Even for things that the LLM’s are actually reasonably good at. So either companies will not adopt AI and keep their human workers, or they’ll dump them for AI LLM’S, quickly realize they need people in specialities to comb through AI responses, and either hire them back for that, or hire them back for the job they wanted to supplant them with LLM’S for.
Because reliability and cost are the only things that are going to make one LLM more preferable to another now that the Internet has basically been scraped for useful training data.
This is algorithms all over again but on a much larger scale. We can’t even keep up with mistakes made by algorithms (see copyright strikes and appeals on YouTube or similar). Humans are supposed to review them. They don’t have enough humans to do that job.
The legislation should work like it would before. It’s not something new, like filesharing in the Internet was.
Which means - punishment.
The legislation doesn’t work because part of the problem is what “products” these LLM’s are being attached to. We already had this argument in the early and mid oughts in the US. And nothing was done really about the misinformation proliferated on places like Twitter and Facebook specifically because of what they are. Social media sites are protected by section 230 in the US and are not considered news aggregators. That’s the problem.
People can’t seem to agree on whether or not they should be. I think if the platform (not the users) is pushing something as a legitimate news source it shouldn’t be protected by 230 for the purposes of news aggregation. But I don’t know that our laws are even attempting to keep up with new tech like LLM’S.
NY’s for a chatbot that was actively giving out information that was pseudo legal advice. Suggesting that Businesses should do illegal things. They aren’t even taking it down. They aren’t being forced to take it down.
To everyone that goes to “X” to get the “real”, unfiltered news, I hope you can see that it’s not that site anymore.
Yet, annoyingly, much of the press still uses it to disseminate news.
I understand journalism is in a rough spot these days and many are there against their will but something needs to change abruptly. This slow exodus is too slow for democracy to survive '24.
I’d argue it never was anything outside of pulling net celebs names from hats and claiming they were rapists and racists without evidence, and then having them get chased off the internet, destroying their careers in the process and in some cases causing suicides… Unless they actually did it, because then they were rich and could just buy good publicity or start an Alt-Right circle jerk where they can claim “Wokeness” did it.
It was never that site the FBI was literally using it for narrative control before Elon bought it
Not saying I like it now but Shit was pretty sketchy then too
“Grok” sounds like a name of a really stupid ork from a D&D capaign.
In case you’re not familiar, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok.
It’s somewhat common slang in hacker culture, which of course Elon is shitting all over as usual. It’s especially ironic since the meaning of the word roughly means “deep or profound understanding”, which their AI has anything but.
Yup. Got also added to the Jargon File, which was an influential collection of hacker slang.
If there’s one thing that Elon is really good at, it’s taking obscure beloved nerd tidbits and then pigeon-shitting all over them.
Oh, what a surprise. Another AI spat out some more bullshit. I can’t wait until companies finally give up on trying to do everything with AI.
I can’t wait until companies finally give up on trying to do everything with AI.
I don’t think that will ever happen.
They’re acceptable of AI driving car accidents that causes harm happen. It’s all part of the learning / debugging process to them.
The issue is that the process won’t ever stop. It won’t ever be debugged sufficiently
EDIT: Due to the way it works. A bit like static error in control theory, you know that for different applications it may or may not be acceptable. The “I” in PID-regulators and all that. IIRC
Due to the way it works. A bit like static error in control theory, you know that for different applications it may or may not be acceptable. The “I” in PID-regulators and all that. IIRC
Oh great, I’m getting horrible flashbacks now to my controls class.
Another way to look at it is if there’s sufficient lag time between your controlled variable and your observed variable, you will never catch up to your target. You’ll always be chasing your tail with basic feedback control.
It won’t ever be debugged sufficiently
It will, someday. Probably years and years down the road (pardon the pun), but it will.
By the way, you reply to me seems very AI-ish. Are you a bot?
AI isn’t inherently bad. Once AI cars cause less accidents than human drivers (even if they still cause some accidents) it will be moral to use them on roads.
AI cars already cause drastically less accidents. And the accidents they do cause are overwhelmingly minor.
