The fact you chose to make your data storage unreadable, doesn’t relieve you of the responsibilities inherent to storing the data.
Throwing away my car key won’t protect me from paying parking tickets.
Comment on Dad demands OpenAI delete ChatGPT’s false claim that he murdered his kids
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
It’s AI. There’s nothing to delete but the erroneous response. There is no database of facts to edit. It doesn’t know fact from fiction, and the response is also very much skewed by the context of the query. I could easily get it to say the same about nearly any random name just by asking it about a bunch of family murders and then asking about a name it doesn’t recognize. It is more likely to assume that person is in the same category as the others and if the one or more of the names have any association (real or fictional) with murder.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 week ago
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
It’s not unreadable, it doesn’t exist.
The responses are just statistically what sounds vaugly what you want to hear.
They can erase the chat responses, but that won’t stop it from generating it again.
Generative AI doesn’t start with facts and work from there. It’s just statistically what you want to hear.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 week ago
The ai model is trained on data and encodes unknown parts of that data in its weights.
This is data storage. Unmanageable, almost unknowable data storage, but still data storage.
If it didn’t store data it couldn’t learn from its training.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.
You cant even get it to count how many letter p are in the word apple. At least not last time I tried.
That storage your talking about isn’t facts. It’s how sentences are structured and what they “mean”.
As for the output “meaning” it’s still just guessing what you want to hear. No facts involved.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
From the GDPR’s standpoint, I wonder if it’s still personal information if it is made up bullshit. The thing is, this could have weird outcomes. Like for example, by the letter of the law, OpenAI might be liable for giving the same answer to the same query again.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 week ago
then again
but it also mixed “clearly identifiable personal data”—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen’s children and the name of his hometown—with the “fake information,”
The made up bullshit aside, this should be a quite clear indicator of an actual GDPR breach
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Maybe he has a insta profile with the name of his kids in his bio
How would that be a GDPR breach?
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 week ago
‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’);
They store his personal data without his permission.
also
Information that is inaccurately attributed to a specific individual, be it factually incorrect or information that in reality is related to another individual, is still considered personal data as it relates to that specific individual. If data are inaccurate to the point that no individual can be identified, then the information is not personal data.
Storing it badly, does not make them excempt.
Maybe he has a insta profile with the name of his kids in his bio
Irrelevant. The data being public does not make it up for grabs.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Funny how everyone around laughs at free speech when it’s for humans, but when it’s a text generator, then suddenly there are some abstract principles preventing everyone to sue the living crap out of all “AI” companies, at least until they are bleeding enough to start putting disclaimers brighter than in Vegas that it’s a word salad machine that doesn’t think, know, claim, dispute, judge or reason.
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Isn’t that a great tool to generate nonsense datasets to poison big data of trackers somehow 🤔
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
They can just put in a custom regex to filter out certain things. It’ll be a bit performative since it does nothing to stop novel misinformation, but it would prevent it from saying what it’s legally required not to say.
Well, it wouldn’t really, it would say it and just hide it under a message saying it violates boundaries. It’s all a bunch of performative bullshit, actually.
For example, the things it’s required not to say would actually be perfectly fine in the realm of fiction or satire or a game of Simon says, but that’ll be disallowed, as well, because the model can’t actually tell the difference.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Yeah, but the problem is that the “certain things” can actually encompass “any data about any person”. That’s a hard regex to write.
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
And it’s llm owners problem to figure out how to fix
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Which is why OpenAI should compensate anyone they have damaged in some way and yes that would mean it would stop exist overnight. That‘s because a criminal organization shouldn‘t be profitable in the first place.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
you can tweak the weights though
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Tweaking weights is no guarantee and can easily affect complete unrelated things.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 week ago
Nobody would sue over a dirty context
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I have this gun machine that shoots in all directions randomly. I can’t predict it, so I can’t stop it from shooting you. So sorry. It’s uncontrollable.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
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.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
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.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
That doesn’t really change anything. The internet is full of AI slip 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.
Probius@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Even nerf bullets can hurt you if they’re shot at you in sufficient quantities.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
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.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If creating text is like shooting bullets, we should require a license for text editors.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The severity of the impact should not dictate whether a person is accountable for a thing they own, or not.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
So, licenses for everything?
Anyway, we hold the person accountable who does (or rarely does not) do something, not the owner of a thing. Which is why a libel accusation makes 0 sense here.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Maybe people need to learn that AI hallucinates
pyre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
you misspelled “is fucking wrong all the goddamn time”
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It would be more accurate to say that rather than knowing anything at all they have a model of the statistical relationship between a series of tokens and subsequent tokens which words are apt to follow other words and because the training set contains many true things the words produced in response to queries often contain true statements and almost always contain statements that LOOK like true statements.
Since it has no inherent model of the world to draw on and only such statistical relationships you should check anything important
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
Maybe the owners of LLMs need to be held responsible for the problematic software they release
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There’s no problem here
Petter1@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Yea, I’m mind blown, how, after 3 years people still don’t know how to use LLM effectively in use cases they bring value (by reducing work time)
Using AI like this, helped me enormously in work and live Like, I learned a lot C, C++, how linux kernel modules work, how PO/POT works, helped me with translations, introduced me into music production, helped me set up appFlowy and general windows/linux issues.
BakerBagel@midwest.social 1 week ago
So then what’s the use of the program if it uses a bunch of energy to just make shit up?
lime@feddit.nu 1 week ago
sometimes you need a machine that makes things up according to a given specification.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Because it makes up things that are 99% correct and in some areas the 99% + verification and expansion can be superior time wise to the 100% manual route
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 week ago
And when it hallucinates harmful things, protections need to be put onto the output.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Ok so explain particularly what this means
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m sorry, as an American, I’m not seeing the problem. Don’t you just need a second gun that shoots in random directions to stop the first gun? And then a third gun to shoot the 2nd gun? I mean come on now, this is basic 3rd grade common sense!