As someone with a kid I feel bad too, but in response to your point, if your kid weren’t developmentally aged to understand what was happening here, would explaining a pet death be so much easier to handle in comparison? I’ve had to explain to a toddler in active crisis that his toys have run out of batteries, went missing, and/or otherwise stopped working… It’s never fun, but putting the kind of existential crisis of owning hardware that is dependent on cloud based services onto your kid seems either sufficiently advanced or totally unnecessary.
I actually agree more with this comment more than after my initial read. You suggest some valid concerns about innovation that regulation could address.
I guess the part I’m unsure about is the assertion about the dissimilarity to Photoshop, or if the marketing is the issue at hand. (E.g. did Adobe do a more appropriate job marketing with respect to conveying that their software is designed for the editing, but not doctoring, or falsifying facts?)
I think ChatGPT and Photoshop are both "designed for" the creation of novel things.
In Photoshop, though, the intent is clearly up to the user. If you edit that photo, you know you're editing the photo.
That's fairly different than ChatGPT where you ask a question and this product has been trained to answer you in a highly-confident way that makes it sound like it actually knows more than it does.
If we’re moving past the marketing questions/concerns, I’m not sure I agree.
For me, for now, ChatGPT remains a tool/resource, like: Google, Wikipedia, Photoshop, Adaptive Cruise Control, and Tesla FSD, (e.g. for the record despite mentioning FSD, I don’t think anyone should ever take a nap while operating a vehicle with any currently available technology).
Did I miss when OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as a truthful resource for legal matters?
Or is this not just an appropriate story that deserves retelling to warn potential users about how not to misappropriate this technology?
At the end of the day, for an attorney, a legal officer of the court, to have done this is absolutely not the technology’s, nor marketing’s, fault.
> Did I miss when OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as a truthful resource for legal matters?
It's in the product itself. On the one hand, OpenAI says: "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."
But at the same time, once you click through, the user interface is presented as a sort of "ask me anything" and they've intentionally crafted their product to take an authoritative voice regardless of if it's creating "incorrect or misleading" information. If you look at the documents submitted by the lawyer using it in this case, it was VERY confident about it's BS.
So a lay user who sees "oh occasionally it's wrong, but here it's giving me a LOT of details, this must be a real case" is understandable. Responsible for not double-checking, yes. I don't want to remove any blame from the lawyer.
Rather, I just want to also put some scrutiny on OpenAI for the impression created by the combination of their product positioning and product voice. I think it's misleading and I don't think it's too much to expect them to be aware of the high potential for mis-use that results.
Adobe presents Photoshop very differently: it's clearly a creative tool for editing and something like "context aware fill" or "generative fill" is positioned as "create some stuff to fill in" even when using it.
I don't think it "legal matters" or not is important.
OpenAI is marketing ChatGPT as accurate tool, and yet a lot of times it is not accurate at all. It's like.. imagine Wikipedia clone which claims earth is flat cheese, or a Cruise Control which crashes your car every 100th use. Would you call this "just another tool"? Or would it be "dangerously broken thing that you should stay away from unless you really know what you are doing"?
That the industry is creating new $15/hr jobs isn’t the most interesting part of this…
> Jatin Kumar, a 22-year-old in Austin, Texas, said he’s been doing AI work on contract for a year since he graduated college with a degree in computer science, and he said it gives him a sneak peak into where generative AI technology is headed in the near-term.
“What it allows you to do is start thinking about ways to use this technology before it hits public markets,” Kumar said. He’s also working on his own tech startup, Bonsai, which is making software to help with hospital billing.
A conversational trainer, Kumar said his main work has been generating prompts: participating in a back-and-forth conversation with chatbot technology that’s part of the long process of training AI systems. The tasks have grown more complex with experience, he said, but they started off very simple.
“Every 45 or 30 minutes, you’d get a new task, generating new prompts,” he said. The prompts might be as simple as, “What is the capital of France?” he said.
Kumar said he worked with about 100 other contractors on tasks to generate training data, correct answers and fine-tune the model by giving feedback on answers.
He said other workers handled “flagged” conversations: reading over examples submitted by ChatGPT users who, for one reason or another, reported the chatbot’s answer back to the company for review. When a flagged conversation comes in, he said, it’s sorted based on the type of error involved and then used in further training of the AI models.
“Initially, it started off as a way for me to help out at OpenAI and learn about existing technologies,” Kumar said. “But now, I can’t see myself stepping away from this role.”
> Bonus if it can just be contacts (yes I know science fiction here).
AR contacts might not be that sci-fi [1]
I don’t know if what I’m linking to is even the best example, but I was pretty sure I’d seen or heard of the tech before and just searched for it…. Very cool if real!
This seems like something out of Black Mirror. Imagine ads that you cannot shut out by closing your eyes; they would just keep playing unless you rip out your contacts. Horrifying.
Opinion based on personal experience ? Which is as close to a « fact » as you get in a conversation like this. Demanding scientific standards of proof in a casual setting is just a rhetorical device used in bad faith.
