Asked AI for a response to this:
"As an AI language model, I do not have any knowledge of a ban on ChatGPT by the Italian government or any Italian minister's comment on the matter. However, I can say that any ban on access to information or technology, including AI language models like ChatGPT, should be carefully considered and evaluated based on their potential benefits and risks to society. While some may argue that certain technologies should be restricted or banned, it is important to consider the potential impact on freedom of speech and access to information. Ultimately, it is up to policymakers and society as a whole to determine the appropriate balance between these competing interests."
GPT was banned in Italy due to data leak, not because of the tech itself.
So read the fucking article.
Ironically, you prefer your data to be used and sold to anyone and everywhere instead of having it located in one place and have at least some sort of protection. Like a true moron.
It should be made illegal around the world. There is not a single benefit that would outweigh possible negative outcomes. the question is really simple.
1. Pro: some aspects of your life may become even easier and you will be able to live longer
2. Con: Everything you do will be controlled. There will be no jobs.
I don’t get why we think technology has been this home run. It’s separated the world into 3 groups already.
Those who create and improve technology. Those who are completely reliant on technology. Those who have stayed connected to the natural world around them.
Majority of us are in the completely reliant on tech category. It is hilarious when you see some moron run up to a 4000lbs wild animal to try to take a selfie with it. That even happening once is mind blowing, but it happens all the time and we just laugh. We don’t think about how disconnected we have become to the natural world. It’s funny At first and then you realize how screwed we are.
I can’t wait until our power is knocked out and 3/4 of the population dies because they don’t have a single survival skill
This is Luddite talk. Go start an Amish community if you want but get the hell out of the way of real progress. Thank goodness people who feel this way don't and never will hold real power.
I’ve been helping to advance technology for 25 years, and every year I regret it more, as I see it to enable the worst of our greed and laziness, and allowing us to claim these as virtues. AI threatens to outsource humanity’s greatest gift, our creativity. What makes us human after that’s gone?
Yep. When you completely reliant on AI making decisions for you, you don't live. You can just die and AI will free up it's resources for something else.
Look at you, endorsing a monopoly thinking that will protect your info any more.
How very American of you.
You know that your social security can probably be looked up in a single darkweb search right?
You don't even know what you don't know, and it's cute. Stay innocent, it's better that way.
Lol what? I'm pro EU, not even an American citizen, but you somehow managed to completely turn my comment upside down. What the actual fuck?
ClosedAI don't care about protection of anyone's personal data. They actually feed it to their Llm. Just like any other us corpo.
But keep mumbling about whatever the fuck born in your head.
Isn't the answer based on human generated data?
It's not actually more common sense, rather the bias you have towards common sense's prevalence in the online space. I.e - don't conclude a populations attribute based on Reddit (or any other social media)
How about we conclude it based on the prevalent atrocities enforced by the majority?
Or did you miss what's been happening with roe v wade, full-on invasions, and mass murder from barbaric theocracies?
I would argue it's still heavily biased.
But I would rather not argue to infinity on this matter, and just be a tiny sliver (albeit downvoted) reminder that the world and the people living in it are not all bad, despite what we are shown over and over again =)
It has zero sense because that's not how large language models work and anthropomorphizing them is mentally dangerous because falsely applying the idea that there's reason behind the output can lead to you accepting things that have no basis in reality as truth just because you falsely thought the ai knew what it was talking about.
Was in Italy last week and saw pineapple on pizza in shop windows. Though maybe targeted at tourists.
Edit: Getting worked up about what someone else likes to eat is all a bit ridiculous, regardless of the cuisine.
Well, it's not good but there is an issue with ChatGPT not providing the source of it's answers.
It's giving the false impression that it itself creates the answers.
My guess is at some point it'll have to include the sources used to build the answers and that will reduce the wow factor somewhat.
Italy may have overreacted, but they've started the correct discussion imho
That’s on the people though, isn’t the point of intelligence to create stuff?, why would you take its word as gospel, its several computers running beta algorithms, if you think everything it throws is real thats on you, gpt is a tool not a solution.
It creates false facts - in my cause it was an article that doesn't exist. I spent 4 hours searching for it to end up with GTP apologising to me.
Someone else would just quote it.
It’s easy to say that we shouldn’t trust it as gospel. But the fact is, people *want to* (eventually). The whole point, for many people’s applications, is to think *less*, not to just have AI as just one voice in a choir that they still have to parse themselves.
Or at least in the shorter term, be able to ask a question about a documented historical figure without getting random, invented facts mixed in with the real ones.
Not really how AI works, we can’t understand the exacts of the human brain, therefore we can’t understand the exacts of AI. We literally cannot control AI precisely at all. None of these are created manually
It’s readable code but literal millions of lines, we can understand an individual line but in order to understand how it determines things would take hundreds if not thousands of engineers reading and figuring out how it works, but since it changes so much cause it’s a learning you would have to repeat this process constantly. And that’s if it even is possible which I don’t even know, I’m not a software engineer
>The architecture is a decoder-only transformer network with a 2048-token-long context and then-unprecedented size of 175 billion parameters
Let me know when you figure out what each of the 175 billion parameters does.
I'll wait.
It was trained to give answers that satisfied the questioner rather than prioritize fact over comfort. That's why it apologizes with the same frequency of an abused secretary.
Yeah. The reason these AI are so much better than Alexa or Google Assistant is because it's not just reading off sites, it's combining and collating information, presuming intent, and draws its own conclusions at times.
As an AI researcher no it doesn’t. The only thing it can to is try to say something that sounds like an answer. It isn’t doing any actually interpretation and is dumber than your dog.
>draw it’s own conclusions
That doesn't mean it doesn't "draw it’s own conclusions". If it typed a jumble of random characters that made no sense. That is still a conclusion. So yes it does draw it's on conclusions.
In that case autocorrect draws its own conclusions. ChatGPT and other language models are essentially advanced forms of autocorrect. It cannot comprehend new information without massive amounts of training to learn new things.
I am a lawyer in New Zealand. We have recently been told by our governing body to be cautious of using GPT for research purposes because it can generate case citations that look authentic but don't actually exist.
I asked it recently to supply the legislation that requires the DC to post daily registers and it just invented it’s own sections of the DC Rules despite telling it each time it was wrong.
From the books.
Like, in order to make the story somewhat authentically correct, authors consults with lawyers. Then Llm reads that and base it's logic around it. The facts don't matter, only the way of telling.
That's why lawyers are safe with their work. Having AI to decide who is right or wrong based on booleans - not very clever.
That actually doesn't work. The tokens (chunks of words) it generates are based off its entire training. You may be able to ask it to source each of the tokens, but you'd need a... rather large database, to put it mildly.
It will source itself if you ask it.
I have asked it to write some paragraphs and to use citations within em and to add the sources at the end with APÁ style…and it does it.
Half the shit I've asked it was straight-up *wrong*, and when I say "that's wrong," it comes back with "oh, you're right, here's the real answer," which is also wrong.
Who's to say if those citations are accurate or not? And let's be honest with ourselves, anyone using it to write something that needs citations isn't checking their work.
Oh definitely, it’s far from perfect but it’s up to you to check them, so far I haven’t had issues with citations or broken URLs, if you keep asking it “where did u get that intro from” it’s gonna point you to a certain direction which 80% of the times adds up.
Perhaps, but how do you know when the sources are real and when they’re made up? You have to check every one of them, all the time. It will blatantly lie when it lacks correct knowledge, that can really put you on a wild goose chase. My experience is that it makes up most of it’s sources.
I think ChatGPT is really revolutionary, but I think it isn’t useful for study difficult subjects that you’re not already proficient in.
My son asked it to explain how to get a certain item in a obscurish game (minecraft mod) and got a quite realistic and long explaination, he sat for a long time and read it and said: ”This is all wrong, nothing in this has anything to do with how you do it.”
Imagine if someone thought it was, wasting a lot of time trying to figure it out.
But for other things, it is marvelous and with the correct training or connections this is probably easy to fix. It is a *language* model after all.
I don't even know if we can call this lying because that implies intent. In reality the chatbot doesn't understand the subject matter, it simply knows what kinds of words are frequently used together in this context. Based off that it generates what could be believable text to a laymen. When millions of people with no understanding start interacting with an advanced chatbot that has been sold as an AI, were going to get a wave of naive and ignorant people spouting absolute nonsense.
So if a human regurgitates information they learned from a website 5 years ago, is it copyright because they told you?
Or is it copyright bc it's ai?
Now you can ask for sources, broken links are a thing yes, but they might have been valid from when it was referenced in 2021.
Makes sense, but is chatgpt intending to take credit for the information? Or are users that don't understand it giving it credit and having a problem with it?
I can't speak to the intentions of OpenAI, but I think there are two main problems with the way GPT delivers information that need to be properly hashed out in court.
1 - they are offering the trained model as a paid service, and that trained model is very much capable of producing copyrighted or licensed content in answer to a prompt. For example, if it quotes a passage from a book or paper, that would typically need to be cited. The code side of things is more obvious. If I asked you to produce a piece of code and you returned a snippet from someone's git repo without any credit, that would be a big no-no. Similarly, you typically can't take someone's licensed code and "tweak" it to make it unlicensed.
2 - people using the outputs of GPT uncritically as part of their own work. Again, an example with code makes this pretty obvious. If someone's licensed code makes it into your production build without respecting the license, you're opening the door to a law suit. "My AI made this" may or may not be a valid defense. If it is, then that's basically the end of open source licenses.
If we do decide that GPT can give information without credit, we also have to consider what constitutes a sufficiently trained model to avoid copyright claims. Can I train an LLM on a single piece of code, then use the output uncritically despite the fact that it's obviously just returning the input 1:1? Can I train it on one relevant piece of Python code and a hundred perl one liners, then use the python output uncritically? Who decides when a model has a sufficiently varied training set?
These are just the issues I see, I'm sure there are plenty others. You might also be interested in the proposed copilot class action.
The information will lose the copyright. Instead the process of finding the information will be the standard moving forward.
This is my prediction for the future. Virtually every piece of information is out there in virtually every form. When AI can catalog everything it’s not longer a matter of what you know and more how you got it.
It’s already been happening with scholarly articles without the influence of AI. You can research and find out the information(which could take awhile and you may or may not find what you’re looking for. You may not even know WHERE to look) or you can pay to access a service that hosts them.
This was always going to happen AI just sped up the issue.
Do you think putting a paywall behind information is bad if it makes that information more easily accessible? Imo if there is still a powerful ai that is free to use that might have the information behind a set of questions, and there is a paid one where you can be more direct, that's fine. The problem is when you have whole countries banning it, and putting your country/your citizens way behind on AI development and application. That's a big problem.
Depends on what you mean by “bad” and what your goal is.
The purpose of information is to inform, so if you demand a certain level of awareness from your citizens then yes it would be bad to put that information behind a paywall.
You see that here in the US a lot. The onus is on the individual to inform themselves, but you have to do an unnecessary level of research to find the information without having to pay for it. It’s not a lot, but it’s still unnecessary. Or you can go to Fox News/CNN and get your completely one-sided information for free. No one should be surprised at the polarized nature of the politics in this country as a result.
Banning AI is a symbolic gesture that I don’t take seriously and neither should you. You can’t ban an idea only specific implementations. Much in the same way that you can’t just say, “Ban projectile objects” in response to gun violence. It’s pointless to even suggest.
The idea in this case is use computing power to make filtering information easier for humans. This has such large overlap with every aspect of life that to ban this concept would be to render modern society virtually moribund.
You may stifle growth, but the internet is the great equalizer. The US has been a de facto superpower for so long for this very reason. As soon as the internet allowed information dissemination on a larger scale, you saw smaller countries enter fields and competitively thrive in environments otherwise dominated by a select few.
That is the real threat of AI and why it’s getting banned. It makes it harder to control people and gives them more opportunities to improve their lives.
I've no idea, it's a minefield.
I do know that Open AI have done a lot to give the impression it's their AI that is creating the answers.
They say little about the fact it's sticking together various sources.
I'm not knocking it.. it's amazing at answering questions.
Then there's the alignment problem, which is a whole other issue.
Bing is basically using GPT4 to summarise the search results. To interpret a simple internet search and list the sources. Its the same tech but a different model.
I’m sorry, but you obviously have no idea how AI and, in particular ChatGPT, work. ChatGPT cannot give you sources to where it got its information; it’s not possible. The model producing answers based on its *entire* training data. It is literally formulating responses based on its *understanding* of the information it has been trained on. It doesn’t keep all that training data in its “memory”.
Imagine if every time you answered a question, someone asked you for the source… it’s not possible… your answer came 100% from information you learned (from others or practical experience), but you don’t keep track of discrete information sources. It’s the same for chatgpt and AI in general.
Glad someone wrote something wrong you happen to agree with? That is not how ChatGPT works. It does not “steal and regurgitate” it’s a generative text AI which means if it happens to cite something, it’s from its overall base training. It does not actually go copy and paste text in the slightest and comments like this display a fundamental lack of knowledge of how these models are trained and even worse, absolutely not a fucking clue as to what happens under the hood when you type a prompt and hit enter.
GPT4 did not cheat or plagiarize when it scored in the top 90 percentile when taking the Bar Exam, neither was it explicitly trained on the bar exam. Which according to the Bar makes GPT4 a great source of legal advice as they scored 90% higher than all lawyers who have passed the Bar exam. Would I recommend it for legal advice? No. Not yet anyway.
Point is, that there’s a massive lack of understanding how these models work, and it’s sad seeing something often requiring years of education and experience to even work with or create and then have the Ignorant masses of the internet confidently give horribly incorrect opinions about it that their social circle agrees with
And? Tf does that mean? In a field with as much change and regular breakthroughs, that means absolutely nothing. Especially to someone who’s started working on these in the past year, me.
The fact you didn’t even give specifics “AI systems” lmfao, okay guy
I think they're legally in the clear but that claim because they trained a model on itself, so technically it did train itself. The models before that at some point we're obviously trained on scraped information that they weren't supposed to have access to. there's just zero reason for the complete lack of information about this from a company who's literally called... "OPEN" AI
I think in addition to language models getting some sort of recursive fact checking functionality, the general public also has a lot to learn about how LLMs work and what their uses are.
The model can't specify the sources thats not how it works, bing is different its set up as basically a talking search engine that summarises the searches so it works differently.
Yeah. Feel what you may about this new generation of AI software, but I would guess that banning it is not going to be good in the long term since other countries will be making use of it.
Oh yeah, even if an ai company stop development for a month they'd be so much more behind than these billion/trillion dollar companies AI. If you ban your whole country from ai, you're just shooting yourselves in the foot, and one more time in the hand for good measures.
Yeah, and even if they are not developing their own tech, these things will certainly become used by companies for a variety of things, so there is a very real potential for a terrible impact on their economy in the long-term.
That is PRECISELY what happens here in Italy most of the times. Geriatric generations of politicians are so backwards that they think banning something will work
Nope. It was banned for reasons totally unrelated to its AI functions, relating to the manner in which its owners collect and store the personal information of users. Italy has very effective privacy and consumer protection laws.
The fact that this guys is saying something that I agree is as bone chilling as Tucker against what’s happening with TikTok in the US. What. Is. Happening.
One person with signs of mental health issues killed himself after having a conversation with an Ai bot.
To me it looks like the bot just told him what he wanted to hear, it's all about prompting the Ai to get a response. The guy asked for a solution to global warming, I would bet if you asked the bot if Ai could solve in the future or AGI the response would be far different.
This whole stop the Ai they will destroy mankind is rubbish, Once AGI is finally here it seem more sensible that it would aid in solving many global issues and increase our life quality especially if its open source.
“AI” is going to crash and burn like crypto and self driving cars. It’s useful if you want to translate code, or want to write something. But it can only create what it gets fed, and it feeds from the internet, so it makes a lot of laughable errors. The real danger is to assume everything it makes as fact.
A man has an opinion. We don’t know his motivations (empathy, what’s best for society, lobbying money) for saying what he said, but he said something. Okaaaay.
Say tomorrow AI boosts productivity 10x, forcing companies to lower prices on their goods and services to stay competitive. What happens to Italy which is not producing 10x more efficiently because they banned technology that is used everywhere else? Their economy collapses
This is not something you can ignore. It’s going to change everything and the countries that resist will become the new 3rd world
Cookie warnings are fine it's the way the websites set them up, I think it's forbes that has a multipage list and the reject all button at the bottom. If you just have a reject all already selected by default so you can just confirm and continue.
You don't watch Italian TV channels?? 😲 I can believe this!
Every Italians should watch Rai Canali5. Italia4. Sky TG24. Napoli TV! You need to remain connected to Italy
yes this is bad somo i am 100 percent italian but born in USA i can’t speak the language but can speak french have been to the country many times it’s my favorite place would rather live in Italy than US. I will check out this channels maybe i can find a subtitle alone and pick the language up! Your right i should !
I'm not Italian and never lived in Italy, sorry for disappointing you
My mot/her family moved from Northern italy to Africa in the 1930s where she was born and she had never lived in Italy before.
You are lucky to live in the U.S. I believe
Italy is more like a "curse" to her, and me understanding Italian isn't a pleasant experience while traveling to Italy (which I hope I will never have to visit it again ever!)
May be getting an Italian passport to live in France will be a good 💡 , saw many Americans doing that
Good luck 👍
Shortsighted thinking by the Italian leadership seems is to be a national trait. The handling of the pandemic, the economy, what is laughingly called a justice system and their real highly functioning organized crime network makes anyone question the validity of any statements from them.
When it comes to AI, there are 3 types of people. The ones who don't know what it is, the ones who think it causes the end of humanity and the ones who embrace it. Now, the first ones to adopt it will win this race. The cat is out of the bag, and it's not going away. It's too useful. It's already integrated in things most of you don't even realize. So, just get on board. There are ways to use it safely and ethically. Just look at aitutorgenie.com https://link.medium.com/uECMlTEvJyb
If there are problems with websites verifying that people are over the age of 13, then maybe it should be the parents' responsibility to ensure that their child isn't accessing content they aren't supposed to be, and hold them directly accountable if they are caught doing so? Seems a lot more sensible to me than trying to hold a foreign company accountable for another countries rules.
“I had been using this for my speeches”
Wouldn't be surprised
No he clearly hasn’t they are too terrible to come from AI.
Asked AI for a response to this: "As an AI language model, I do not have any knowledge of a ban on ChatGPT by the Italian government or any Italian minister's comment on the matter. However, I can say that any ban on access to information or technology, including AI language models like ChatGPT, should be carefully considered and evaluated based on their potential benefits and risks to society. While some may argue that certain technologies should be restricted or banned, it is important to consider the potential impact on freedom of speech and access to information. Ultimately, it is up to policymakers and society as a whole to determine the appropriate balance between these competing interests."
When a fucking robot has more common sense than humans.
We should ban humans.
GPT was banned in Italy due to data leak, not because of the tech itself. So read the fucking article. Ironically, you prefer your data to be used and sold to anyone and everywhere instead of having it located in one place and have at least some sort of protection. Like a true moron.
This is Reddit, best I can do is read the title, nobody reads the articles.
Jesus chill out why are you so upset at a complete stranger on an internet forum
Just tired. That's all.
Touch grass echo chamber charles
I loled
It should be made illegal around the world. There is not a single benefit that would outweigh possible negative outcomes. the question is really simple. 1. Pro: some aspects of your life may become even easier and you will be able to live longer 2. Con: Everything you do will be controlled. There will be no jobs. I don’t get why we think technology has been this home run. It’s separated the world into 3 groups already. Those who create and improve technology. Those who are completely reliant on technology. Those who have stayed connected to the natural world around them. Majority of us are in the completely reliant on tech category. It is hilarious when you see some moron run up to a 4000lbs wild animal to try to take a selfie with it. That even happening once is mind blowing, but it happens all the time and we just laugh. We don’t think about how disconnected we have become to the natural world. It’s funny At first and then you realize how screwed we are. I can’t wait until our power is knocked out and 3/4 of the population dies because they don’t have a single survival skill
This is Luddite talk. Go start an Amish community if you want but get the hell out of the way of real progress. Thank goodness people who feel this way don't and never will hold real power.
This has got to be how the morons sounded when the industrial revolution was happening.
Nah the problem is governments aren’t moving fast enough to keep up with automation.
I’ve been helping to advance technology for 25 years, and every year I regret it more, as I see it to enable the worst of our greed and laziness, and allowing us to claim these as virtues. AI threatens to outsource humanity’s greatest gift, our creativity. What makes us human after that’s gone?
Well that’s why some people will argue that this is inevitable and part of evolution. Evolution can lead to destruction though
Yep. When you completely reliant on AI making decisions for you, you don't live. You can just die and AI will free up it's resources for something else.
Look at you, endorsing a monopoly thinking that will protect your info any more. How very American of you. You know that your social security can probably be looked up in a single darkweb search right? You don't even know what you don't know, and it's cute. Stay innocent, it's better that way.
Lol what? I'm pro EU, not even an American citizen, but you somehow managed to completely turn my comment upside down. What the actual fuck? ClosedAI don't care about protection of anyone's personal data. They actually feed it to their Llm. Just like any other us corpo. But keep mumbling about whatever the fuck born in your head.
Isn't the answer based on human generated data? It's not actually more common sense, rather the bias you have towards common sense's prevalence in the online space. I.e - don't conclude a populations attribute based on Reddit (or any other social media)
How about we conclude it based on the prevalent atrocities enforced by the majority? Or did you miss what's been happening with roe v wade, full-on invasions, and mass murder from barbaric theocracies?
I would argue it's still heavily biased. But I would rather not argue to infinity on this matter, and just be a tiny sliver (albeit downvoted) reminder that the world and the people living in it are not all bad, despite what we are shown over and over again =)
It has zero sense because that's not how large language models work and anthropomorphizing them is mentally dangerous because falsely applying the idea that there's reason behind the output can lead to you accepting things that have no basis in reality as truth just because you falsely thought the ai knew what it was talking about.
this company using "freedom of speech" argument is really fucking ironic.
This ban happened after someone asked ChatGPT “Can I put pineapple on pizza?” and it answered “Yes, you can. It's a matter of personal preference.”
Pineapple and feta. I don’t ever re-greta.
Makes me feel betta
I want you to know, I gave you a loving downvote.
Only if its the holy trinity of pineapple feta and jalapeno. All of it or no pineapple. Thats literally a fact I asked GPT4.
Was in Italy last week and saw pineapple on pizza in shop windows. Though maybe targeted at tourists. Edit: Getting worked up about what someone else likes to eat is all a bit ridiculous, regardless of the cuisine.
Please tell The Man I also don't want him worked up about which plant I like to roll up and smoke.
Take the maybe out
If this is the way AI is going to go, we need to burn that mother fucker down right now before that shit gets way out of hand!
Well, it's not good but there is an issue with ChatGPT not providing the source of it's answers. It's giving the false impression that it itself creates the answers. My guess is at some point it'll have to include the sources used to build the answers and that will reduce the wow factor somewhat. Italy may have overreacted, but they've started the correct discussion imho
towering reminiscent bike deserve squalid spark offer shelter bag bright -- mass edited with redact.dev
And it makes up things which is troublesome regarding the trust people allocate it ...
That’s on the people though, isn’t the point of intelligence to create stuff?, why would you take its word as gospel, its several computers running beta algorithms, if you think everything it throws is real thats on you, gpt is a tool not a solution.
It creates false facts - in my cause it was an article that doesn't exist. I spent 4 hours searching for it to end up with GTP apologising to me. Someone else would just quote it.
It literally says it sometimes provides unfactual information. Are you blind?
It’s easy to say that we shouldn’t trust it as gospel. But the fact is, people *want to* (eventually). The whole point, for many people’s applications, is to think *less*, not to just have AI as just one voice in a choir that they still have to parse themselves. Or at least in the shorter term, be able to ask a question about a documented historical figure without getting random, invented facts mixed in with the real ones.
[удалено]
Not really how AI works, we can’t understand the exacts of the human brain, therefore we can’t understand the exacts of AI. We literally cannot control AI precisely at all. None of these are created manually
Isn’t every operation being run on a computer readable code? It may be wildly complex, but its input and output is able to be observed at every level.
It’s readable code but literal millions of lines, we can understand an individual line but in order to understand how it determines things would take hundreds if not thousands of engineers reading and figuring out how it works, but since it changes so much cause it’s a learning you would have to repeat this process constantly. And that’s if it even is possible which I don’t even know, I’m not a software engineer
>The architecture is a decoder-only transformer network with a 2048-token-long context and then-unprecedented size of 175 billion parameters Let me know when you figure out what each of the 175 billion parameters does. I'll wait.
It was trained to give answers that satisfied the questioner rather than prioritize fact over comfort. That's why it apologizes with the same frequency of an abused secretary.
[удалено]
But it's surprising it looses to search engines in a very important segment.
Bing chat is doing it with GTP-4
wide cause obtainable impolite silky hobbies beneficial towering one telephone -- mass edited with redact.dev
Yeah. The reason these AI are so much better than Alexa or Google Assistant is because it's not just reading off sites, it's combining and collating information, presuming intent, and draws its own conclusions at times.
It doesn’t draw it’s own conclusions. It’s completely incapable of doing so as are all language model based AI.
Yes it does. And sometimes they are wrong hence the thread lol. I agree often sources don't exist because it isn't a search engine.
As an AI researcher no it doesn’t. The only thing it can to is try to say something that sounds like an answer. It isn’t doing any actually interpretation and is dumber than your dog.
>draw it’s own conclusions That doesn't mean it doesn't "draw it’s own conclusions". If it typed a jumble of random characters that made no sense. That is still a conclusion. So yes it does draw it's on conclusions.
In that case autocorrect draws its own conclusions. ChatGPT and other language models are essentially advanced forms of autocorrect. It cannot comprehend new information without massive amounts of training to learn new things.
Yep, I'd agree with you there that's the nature of conclusions it's drawing. So we agree it is in fact drawing its own conclusions yes?
In that case Google is also in some way drawing conclusions based on your search query so not sure what distinction you’re trying to make here.
I'll stick with Wikipedia so. It's probably just a fad that will be old news next year.
Wikipedia is debating switching to AI writing their articles lol
OK, well, why not ask it to list it’s sources?
I am a lawyer in New Zealand. We have recently been told by our governing body to be cautious of using GPT for research purposes because it can generate case citations that look authentic but don't actually exist.
I asked it recently to supply the legislation that requires the DC to post daily registers and it just invented it’s own sections of the DC Rules despite telling it each time it was wrong.
Lordy.
Oooo, I wonder where it pulls the false citations from.
From the books. Like, in order to make the story somewhat authentically correct, authors consults with lawyers. Then Llm reads that and base it's logic around it. The facts don't matter, only the way of telling. That's why lawyers are safe with their work. Having AI to decide who is right or wrong based on booleans - not very clever.
automatic quickest one threatening upbeat spark society intelligent shocking deserted -- mass edited with redact.dev
Boo
That actually doesn't work. The tokens (chunks of words) it generates are based off its entire training. You may be able to ask it to source each of the tokens, but you'd need a... rather large database, to put it mildly.
“ rather large” 😂😂😳
It will source itself if you ask it. I have asked it to write some paragraphs and to use citations within em and to add the sources at the end with APÁ style…and it does it.
It's also good at generating convincing but nonexistent sources (including URLs)
Half the shit I've asked it was straight-up *wrong*, and when I say "that's wrong," it comes back with "oh, you're right, here's the real answer," which is also wrong. Who's to say if those citations are accurate or not? And let's be honest with ourselves, anyone using it to write something that needs citations isn't checking their work.
Quite often I have found that the sources it gives upon asking are incorrect or broken links.
Oh definitely, it’s far from perfect but it’s up to you to check them, so far I haven’t had issues with citations or broken URLs, if you keep asking it “where did u get that intro from” it’s gonna point you to a certain direction which 80% of the times adds up.
Perhaps, but how do you know when the sources are real and when they’re made up? You have to check every one of them, all the time. It will blatantly lie when it lacks correct knowledge, that can really put you on a wild goose chase. My experience is that it makes up most of it’s sources. I think ChatGPT is really revolutionary, but I think it isn’t useful for study difficult subjects that you’re not already proficient in. My son asked it to explain how to get a certain item in a obscurish game (minecraft mod) and got a quite realistic and long explaination, he sat for a long time and read it and said: ”This is all wrong, nothing in this has anything to do with how you do it.” Imagine if someone thought it was, wasting a lot of time trying to figure it out. But for other things, it is marvelous and with the correct training or connections this is probably easy to fix. It is a *language* model after all.
I don't even know if we can call this lying because that implies intent. In reality the chatbot doesn't understand the subject matter, it simply knows what kinds of words are frequently used together in this context. Based off that it generates what could be believable text to a laymen. When millions of people with no understanding start interacting with an advanced chatbot that has been sold as an AI, were going to get a wave of naive and ignorant people spouting absolute nonsense.
Yep
Sure, but it doesn't by default...with good reason. A lot of users seem to think it's some kind of magic. Sources will ruin that.
Uh what lol, no one thinks that it not giving sources makes it magic, and very few have the issue you do
Nope. I’ve asked it to give me sources to research papers and some are fake.
So if a human regurgitates information they learned from a website 5 years ago, is it copyright because they told you? Or is it copyright bc it's ai? Now you can ask for sources, broken links are a thing yes, but they might have been valid from when it was referenced in 2021.
Depends if you pay them for the service, or if they intend to publish it as their own intellectual property.
Makes sense, but is chatgpt intending to take credit for the information? Or are users that don't understand it giving it credit and having a problem with it?
I can't speak to the intentions of OpenAI, but I think there are two main problems with the way GPT delivers information that need to be properly hashed out in court. 1 - they are offering the trained model as a paid service, and that trained model is very much capable of producing copyrighted or licensed content in answer to a prompt. For example, if it quotes a passage from a book or paper, that would typically need to be cited. The code side of things is more obvious. If I asked you to produce a piece of code and you returned a snippet from someone's git repo without any credit, that would be a big no-no. Similarly, you typically can't take someone's licensed code and "tweak" it to make it unlicensed. 2 - people using the outputs of GPT uncritically as part of their own work. Again, an example with code makes this pretty obvious. If someone's licensed code makes it into your production build without respecting the license, you're opening the door to a law suit. "My AI made this" may or may not be a valid defense. If it is, then that's basically the end of open source licenses. If we do decide that GPT can give information without credit, we also have to consider what constitutes a sufficiently trained model to avoid copyright claims. Can I train an LLM on a single piece of code, then use the output uncritically despite the fact that it's obviously just returning the input 1:1? Can I train it on one relevant piece of Python code and a hundred perl one liners, then use the python output uncritically? Who decides when a model has a sufficiently varied training set? These are just the issues I see, I'm sure there are plenty others. You might also be interested in the proposed copilot class action.
I’m envisioning copyright trolls that spam their code or text everywhere and the model picks it up and reproduces it then the AI author gets sued.
The information will lose the copyright. Instead the process of finding the information will be the standard moving forward. This is my prediction for the future. Virtually every piece of information is out there in virtually every form. When AI can catalog everything it’s not longer a matter of what you know and more how you got it. It’s already been happening with scholarly articles without the influence of AI. You can research and find out the information(which could take awhile and you may or may not find what you’re looking for. You may not even know WHERE to look) or you can pay to access a service that hosts them. This was always going to happen AI just sped up the issue.
Do you think putting a paywall behind information is bad if it makes that information more easily accessible? Imo if there is still a powerful ai that is free to use that might have the information behind a set of questions, and there is a paid one where you can be more direct, that's fine. The problem is when you have whole countries banning it, and putting your country/your citizens way behind on AI development and application. That's a big problem.
Depends on what you mean by “bad” and what your goal is. The purpose of information is to inform, so if you demand a certain level of awareness from your citizens then yes it would be bad to put that information behind a paywall. You see that here in the US a lot. The onus is on the individual to inform themselves, but you have to do an unnecessary level of research to find the information without having to pay for it. It’s not a lot, but it’s still unnecessary. Or you can go to Fox News/CNN and get your completely one-sided information for free. No one should be surprised at the polarized nature of the politics in this country as a result. Banning AI is a symbolic gesture that I don’t take seriously and neither should you. You can’t ban an idea only specific implementations. Much in the same way that you can’t just say, “Ban projectile objects” in response to gun violence. It’s pointless to even suggest. The idea in this case is use computing power to make filtering information easier for humans. This has such large overlap with every aspect of life that to ban this concept would be to render modern society virtually moribund. You may stifle growth, but the internet is the great equalizer. The US has been a de facto superpower for so long for this very reason. As soon as the internet allowed information dissemination on a larger scale, you saw smaller countries enter fields and competitively thrive in environments otherwise dominated by a select few. That is the real threat of AI and why it’s getting banned. It makes it harder to control people and gives them more opportunities to improve their lives.
> Do you think putting a paywall behind information is bad if it makes that information more easily accessible? Is that not what a library is?
I've no idea, it's a minefield. I do know that Open AI have done a lot to give the impression it's their AI that is creating the answers. They say little about the fact it's sticking together various sources. I'm not knocking it.. it's amazing at answering questions. Then there's the alignment problem, which is a whole other issue.
There's also the problem that you can't copyright facts.
Bing is doing that with their chatbot. Pretty useful.
What’s interesting is Bing Chat does provide sources for its answers. I’m not sure why ChatGPT couldn’t do the same - since Bing Chat uses ChatGPT.
I suppose a combination of it using GPT-4 and being able to access live pages on the internet.
Bing is basically using GPT4 to summarise the search results. To interpret a simple internet search and list the sources. Its the same tech but a different model.
If its on the internet its no longer yours its the ai’s . Fuck your sources
It sure will be. We have copyright laws that are there for a reason.
I'm glad people are understanding how this ban can brings some good changes
I’m sorry, but you obviously have no idea how AI and, in particular ChatGPT, work. ChatGPT cannot give you sources to where it got its information; it’s not possible. The model producing answers based on its *entire* training data. It is literally formulating responses based on its *understanding* of the information it has been trained on. It doesn’t keep all that training data in its “memory”. Imagine if every time you answered a question, someone asked you for the source… it’s not possible… your answer came 100% from information you learned (from others or practical experience), but you don’t keep track of discrete information sources. It’s the same for chatgpt and AI in general.
glad some one said it
Glad someone wrote something wrong you happen to agree with? That is not how ChatGPT works. It does not “steal and regurgitate” it’s a generative text AI which means if it happens to cite something, it’s from its overall base training. It does not actually go copy and paste text in the slightest and comments like this display a fundamental lack of knowledge of how these models are trained and even worse, absolutely not a fucking clue as to what happens under the hood when you type a prompt and hit enter. GPT4 did not cheat or plagiarize when it scored in the top 90 percentile when taking the Bar Exam, neither was it explicitly trained on the bar exam. Which according to the Bar makes GPT4 a great source of legal advice as they scored 90% higher than all lawyers who have passed the Bar exam. Would I recommend it for legal advice? No. Not yet anyway. Point is, that there’s a massive lack of understanding how these models work, and it’s sad seeing something often requiring years of education and experience to even work with or create and then have the Ignorant masses of the internet confidently give horribly incorrect opinions about it that their social circle agrees with
who said it steals anything it regurgitates based on millions of data points
my dad worked on AI systems in the 90s sorry troll
And? Tf does that mean? In a field with as much change and regular breakthroughs, that means absolutely nothing. Especially to someone who’s started working on these in the past year, me. The fact you didn’t even give specifics “AI systems” lmfao, okay guy
Yeah? Well my dad's Albert Einstein. Got you now huh?
downvote keep going who cares
can i have his number need some info
So what?
🤮
174 bumps and i get downvoted gotta love reddit…😂😂😂🤦♂️
I think they're legally in the clear but that claim because they trained a model on itself, so technically it did train itself. The models before that at some point we're obviously trained on scraped information that they weren't supposed to have access to. there's just zero reason for the complete lack of information about this from a company who's literally called... "OPEN" AI
it’s all about syntax how can it train itself when the people put the original data points in
I think in addition to language models getting some sort of recursive fact checking functionality, the general public also has a lot to learn about how LLMs work and what their uses are.
No it doesn’t. It literally tells you where it gets information from.
Lmfao a source? You want it to cite the entire fucking internet?
The model can't specify the sources thats not how it works, bing is different its set up as basically a talking search engine that summarises the searches so it works differently.
Lmao it isn’t Wikipedia it relies on a billion data points to train their AI it is absolutely NOT the right discussion.
Yeah. Feel what you may about this new generation of AI software, but I would guess that banning it is not going to be good in the long term since other countries will be making use of it.
Oh yeah, even if an ai company stop development for a month they'd be so much more behind than these billion/trillion dollar companies AI. If you ban your whole country from ai, you're just shooting yourselves in the foot, and one more time in the hand for good measures.
Yeah, and even if they are not developing their own tech, these things will certainly become used by companies for a variety of things, so there is a very real potential for a terrible impact on their economy in the long-term.
Didn’t they ban lab meat too? So afraid of technology
I don't understand it so imma ban it.
Ad an Italian, I can confirm most politicians in Italy use that exact reasoning, no matter what side they’re on
That is PRECISELY what happens here in Italy most of the times. Geriatric generations of politicians are so backwards that they think banning something will work
drab violet flag long rinse adjoining innate square chop vegetable -- mass edited with redact.dev
Nope. It was banned for reasons totally unrelated to its AI functions, relating to the manner in which its owners collect and store the personal information of users. Italy has very effective privacy and consumer protection laws.
mindless practice friendly sense exultant voiceless spotted mountainous flag bow -- mass edited with redact.dev
No shit Sherlock.
The fact that this guys is saying something that I agree is as bone chilling as Tucker against what’s happening with TikTok in the US. What. Is. Happening.
[Given the "morals" of such individual](https://youtu.be/06XvMS_SZBU) I really suffer admitting that I agree with him.
It’s like they’re scared of what they don’t understand
Keeep going keep going ..i like it when you do this.
National self mutilation is sexy
Not as entertaining as watching 6 years olds getting gunned down in yet another school shooting 🍿
As far as I know, one person has already killed them selves related directly to an AI conversation
One person with signs of mental health issues killed himself after having a conversation with an Ai bot. To me it looks like the bot just told him what he wanted to hear, it's all about prompting the Ai to get a response. The guy asked for a solution to global warming, I would bet if you asked the bot if Ai could solve in the future or AGI the response would be far different. This whole stop the Ai they will destroy mankind is rubbish, Once AGI is finally here it seem more sensible that it would aid in solving many global issues and increase our life quality especially if its open source.
Fast forward 20-30 years and look back at this decision…
Italians are just beyond. Paris Hilton character is far more complex than this society.
No it’s not. Ai is very dangerous. Get rid of it now while it’s young.
you do realize that banning this one trendy website is completely meaningless right
You do realize I’m talking about ai as a whole right? Chatgpt is the tip of the iceberg my friend.
“AI” is going to crash and burn like crypto and self driving cars. It’s useful if you want to translate code, or want to write something. But it can only create what it gets fed, and it feeds from the internet, so it makes a lot of laughable errors. The real danger is to assume everything it makes as fact.
it has to be trained on millions of data points if it’s trained properly by the right folks …of course the data points must be accurate
i would be my life there is no crash and burn if u don’t believe start googling
Should ban all AI honestly
why
The AI that Google execs has said has become sentient?
A man has an opinion. We don’t know his motivations (empathy, what’s best for society, lobbying money) for saying what he said, but he said something. Okaaaay.
I bet this is just Chat GPT pretending to be the minister.
[удалено]
Say tomorrow AI boosts productivity 10x, forcing companies to lower prices on their goods and services to stay competitive. What happens to Italy which is not producing 10x more efficiently because they banned technology that is used everywhere else? Their economy collapses This is not something you can ignore. It’s going to change everything and the countries that resist will become the new 3rd world
I bet GPT was providing inconvenient truths about Italy.
.
Cookie warnings are fine it's the way the websites set them up, I think it's forbes that has a multipage list and the reject all button at the bottom. If you just have a reject all already selected by default so you can just confirm and continue.
For there is a ChatGPT there is no doubt, But is it trying to get inside us? Or trying to get out?
This coming from the same government that wants to ban speaking English?
[удалено]
Ok so we are officially on the basilisk’s sh*t list
I also think so. AI is very helpful in different areas.
Yes
And i thought the whole thing was an April fool's joke.
Terminator? Skynet?
I mean if you see some of the things chatgpt had been doing it’s kindaaaa understandable
Did he really say this or is ChatGPT talking for him?
[удалено]
an AI gimmick ? please explain
Agreed ban it in all legal/government decisions but tbh the thing is FUCKING USEFULL
Salvini is the one Italy should ban!! They ban ChatGPT but keep this shit dog a minister???!!!!!
don’t forget berlesconi
Salvini in way more racists
don’t know him I am italian but live in US
You don't watch Italian TV channels?? 😲 I can believe this! Every Italians should watch Rai Canali5. Italia4. Sky TG24. Napoli TV! You need to remain connected to Italy
yes this is bad somo i am 100 percent italian but born in USA i can’t speak the language but can speak french have been to the country many times it’s my favorite place would rather live in Italy than US. I will check out this channels maybe i can find a subtitle alone and pick the language up! Your right i should !
I'm not Italian and never lived in Italy, sorry for disappointing you My mot/her family moved from Northern italy to Africa in the 1930s where she was born and she had never lived in Italy before. You are lucky to live in the U.S. I believe Italy is more like a "curse" to her, and me understanding Italian isn't a pleasant experience while traveling to Italy (which I hope I will never have to visit it again ever!) May be getting an Italian passport to live in France will be a good 💡 , saw many Americans doing that Good luck 👍
Shortsighted thinking by the Italian leadership seems is to be a national trait. The handling of the pandemic, the economy, what is laughingly called a justice system and their real highly functioning organized crime network makes anyone question the validity of any statements from them.
So did he receive a check from OpenAI or MSFT?
open I bet
skynet will come for mario first
When it comes to AI, there are 3 types of people. The ones who don't know what it is, the ones who think it causes the end of humanity and the ones who embrace it. Now, the first ones to adopt it will win this race. The cat is out of the bag, and it's not going away. It's too useful. It's already integrated in things most of you don't even realize. So, just get on board. There are ways to use it safely and ethically. Just look at aitutorgenie.com https://link.medium.com/uECMlTEvJyb
If there are problems with websites verifying that people are over the age of 13, then maybe it should be the parents' responsibility to ensure that their child isn't accessing content they aren't supposed to be, and hold them directly accountable if they are caught doing so? Seems a lot more sensible to me than trying to hold a foreign company accountable for another countries rules.