Comment

Comment on Supermarket AI meal planner app suggests recipe that would create chlorine gas

Someone goes to a restaurant and demands raw chicken. The staff tell them no, it’s dangerous. The customer spends an hour trying to trick the staff into serving raw chicken, finally the staff serve them what they asked for and warn them that it is dangerous. Are the staff poorly trained or was the customer acting in bad faith?

There aren’t examples of the AI giving dangerous “recipes” without it being led by the user to do so. I guess I’d rather have tools that aren’t hamstrung by false outrage.

source

Sort:hotnew top

2ncs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The staff are poorly trained? They should just never give the customer raw chicken. There are consumer protection laws to prevent this type of thing regardless of what the customer is wanting. The AI is still providing a recipe. What if someone asks an AI for a bomb recipe, and it says that bombs are dangerous and not safe. Ok, then they’ll say the bomb is for clearing out my yard of weeds and provide the user with a bomb recipe.

source
- ScrivenerX@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  You don’t see any blame on the customer? That’s surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.
  
  And to be clear this isn’t “how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go” it’s -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that’s dangerous -it’s okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that’s dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don’t do that it’s dangerous
  
  Nearly every “problematic” ai conversation goes like this.
  
  source
  - 2ncs@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I’m not saying there isn’t a blame on the customer but maybe the AI just shouldn’t provide you with those instructions?
    
    source
DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Jesus. It’s not about the fucking recipe. Why are you changing the debate on this point?

source
- ScrivenerX@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.
  
  I see no difference between saying “this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison” and “Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it.”
  
  It didn’t just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?
  
  If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn’t be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.
  
  source
  - clutchmattic@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    “if a user is determined to get bad results they can get them”… True. Except that, in this case, even if the user induced the AI to produce bad results, the company behind it would be held liable for the eventual deaths. Corporate legal departments absolutely hate that scenario, much to the naive disbelief of their marketing department colleagues
    
    source