[HN Gopher] ChatGPT invented a sexual harassment scandal and nam...
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT invented a sexual harassment scandal and named a real prof
as accused
Author : fnimick
Score : 38 points
Date : 2023-04-05 21:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| fnimick wrote:
| Important part of the article copied here, because potential
| paywall:
|
| > One night last week, the law professor Jonathan Turley got a
| troubling email. As part of a research study, a fellow lawyer in
| California had asked the AI chatbot ChatGPT to generate a list of
| legal scholars who had sexually harassed someone. Turley's name
| was on the list.
|
| > The chatbot, created by OpenAI, said Turley had made sexually
| suggestive comments and attempted to touch a student while on a
| class trip to Alaska, citing a March 2018 article in The
| Washington Post as the source of the information. The problem: No
| such article existed. There had never been a class trip to
| Alaska. And Turley said he'd never been accused of harassing a
| student.
|
| > A regular commentator in the media, Turley had sometimes asked
| for corrections in news stories. But this time, there was no
| journalist or editor to call -- and no way to correct the record.
|
| > "It was quite chilling," he said in an interview with The Post.
| "An allegation of this kind is incredibly harmful."
| IronWolve wrote:
| Seems to be patched, Now it gives you RAIN 800 number and the
| normal "i can answer that".
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| It hallucinated bonus answers. While contextually a serious
| issue, it is a known potential outcome of the system. Hence the
| human operator. Without that, there is no bullshit detector.
|
| So the bullshit detector, instead of simply letting it remain
| bullshit, sent it to the subject of the hallucination.
|
| As the subject was so bothered by the hallucination, even the
| publication "cited" got involved.
|
| But there's no story here. Someone with a significant name had
| their name randomly selected for a hallucination.
| lisasays wrote:
| That's precisely the problem - far too many people have lousy
| bullshit detectors.
|
| And on top of that - they either genuinely believe that "AI is
| finally here", and systems like ChatGPT are true oracles. If it
| walks like a duck and talks like a duck, right?
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| > That's precisely the problem - far too many people have
| lousy bullshit detectors.
|
| Right. People are the problem, not technology. Which is why
| crippling the technology is so foolish.
| lisasays wrote:
| The issue isn't whether the technology should be crippled
| or not.
|
| Rather - as to whether the legal system holds those
| accountable (be it the creators of the technology, or those
| who "misuse" it) liable for the consequences of their
| actions.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| The creators liable for a hallucination?
|
| Consequences of what action?
|
| And yes, it has already been crippled in an effort to
| correct bias and to protect people from themselves.
| lisasays wrote:
| _The creators liable for a hallucination?_
|
| For hallucinations marketed and sold as a reliable source
| of information - yes.
|
| _Consequences of what action?_
|
| For what they do to others on the basis of the above.
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| Who is selling anything as a reliable source of
| information?
|
| Since that's the basis of whatever this is.
| lisasays wrote:
| _Who is selling anything as a reliable source of
| information?_
|
| OpenAI for example, whose marketing materials present it
| as exactly that. For example:
|
| _You essentially have the knowledge of the most
| knowledgeable person in Wealth Management--instantly",
| McMillan adds. "Think of it as having our Chief
| Investment Strategist, Chief Global Economist, Global
| Equities Strategist, and every other analyst around the
| globe on call for every advisor, every day. We believe
| that is a transformative capability for our company._
| catchnear4321 wrote:
| And did it have any note about not being a financial
| advisor? What else was said? I'm assuming there was more
| to it than that.
|
| We can move the goalposts to T&Cs being a problem, but
| that's even further from AI being the problem.
|
| Wasn't this supposed to be about the dangers of AI? This
| sounds, again, still, like the dangers of humans. With a
| new tool.
| lisasays wrote:
| It's always been about the dangers of humans -
| specifically those who create and market products of this
| nature. With us as their unwilling test subjects.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| I think the idea is that if someone sold me their "9mm
| slug to the brain as-a-service" concept on the basis that
| 9mm slugs are perfectly safe, my estate would still have
| a pretty good wrongful death case against them. There are
| some things (crimes, intentional torts) that are harder
| to disclaim than you might think.
| latexr wrote:
| > People are the problem, not technology.
|
| That's the same argument as "guns don't kill people, people
| kill people".
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > Someone with a significant name had their name randomly
| selected for a hallucination.
|
| It seems that the story consists of, essentially, "Is this
| thing (which happened for the first time but that will
| presumably happen all of the time now) a tort?" In the context
| of a multibillion dollar company like Microsoft this is
| actually quite a story.
| owenpalmer wrote:
| People do this every day without ChatGPT
| ArnoVW wrote:
| We know people can lie. We also know that some people are more
| prone to lieing. Using these priors we can navigate daily
| uncertainty.
|
| This sort of article/post helps us (as a society, not just HN)
| adjust those priors re AI. Because "computer says no" is a real
| thing.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > People do this every day without ChatGPT
|
| Commit libel and defamation? Sure, but that doesn't excuse this
| in the slightest.
|
| It also speaks to the reliability of ChatGPT.
| ftxbro wrote:
| The medium by which it happens can make it more interesting for
| news.
|
| For example, probably every day people do assault with fist and
| it doesn't go to the news. But if they do assault with katana
| then it would go to the news. Same with inventing scandal using
| an unusual medium.
| dang wrote:
| Related ongoing thread:
|
| _Defamed by ChatGPT_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35468540
|
| plus this similar case:
|
| _ChatGPT: Mayor starts legal bid over false bribery claim_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35471211 - April 2023 (74
| comments)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Ohhh, my.
|
| There's an old saying, that the legal definition of pornography
| is "whatever excites the judge" (in the court case in which that
| judge has to decide "is X pornography or not?").
|
| This may become a very similar situation...but with the legal
| definition in questions being "libel".
| TobyTheDog123 wrote:
| I agree with another chatter in this thread about the issue being
| OpenAI advertising what ChatGPT actually does.
|
| I'm as anti-AI-hype as they come, but a lot of these articles
| seem to stem from peoples' expectations about ChatGPT results,
| namely that it tells the truth all the time.
|
| Of course it doesn't - and it never will. There will always need
| to be a human to verify what its saying is actually true, and
| it's why most AI tools will never be anything more than an
| assistant to a human operator.
|
| People believing it at face value will simply allow for the next
| generation of the fake news we've all come to know and love.
| djaouen wrote:
| Wow, reason? In my HN? It's more likely than you think!
| thro1 wrote:
| If it can't be undone it shall not be done at first.
| williamcotton wrote:
| The person who published the article is liable. This is open and
| shut.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| Which article?
| yawnxyz wrote:
| https://archive.is/yeoES
| [deleted]
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| https://archive.is/lJj3c
| smusamashah wrote:
| It is OpenAI's responsibility to advertise ChatGPT correctly.
| They are letting the misinformation / misunderstanding about
| spread because it's helping them sell their tool. ChatGPT is not
| a fact database, they should be very very clear about it
| everywhere. But they are not doing it. Or at least not doing it
| as loudly as they should intentionally.
| JimmyAustin wrote:
| It gives you the following warning in a large prompt in the
| middle of the screen that you must actively dismiss before you
| can use the product.
|
| "While we have safeguards in place, the system may occasionally
| generate incorrect or misleading information and produce
| offensive or biased content. It is not intended to give
| advice."
|
| If that isn't being clear, I don't know what would be.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Oh boy can't wait for this to replace Google Search!
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-06 23:01 UTC)