it’d be great to see regulations making AI companies liable for all sorts of damage from their products, including attributing statements to people who’ve never made them.
I see a case against punishing here, in general. Consider me asking you “What did Mario say?”, and you answering—in private -
“Listen to this sentence—even though it might well be totally wrong: Mario said xxxx.”,
or, even more in line with the ChatGPT situation,
“From what I read, I have the somewhat vague impression that Mario said xxxx—though I might mix this up, so you may really want to double-check.”
Assume Mario has not said xxxx. We still have a strong case for not, in general, punishing you for the above statement. And even if I acted badly in response to your message, so that someone gets hurt, I’d see, a priori, the main blame to fall upon me, not you.
The parallels to the case of ChatGPT[1] suggests to extend a similar reservation about punishing to our current LLMs.
Admittedly, pragmatism is in order. If an LLM’s hallucinations—despite warnings—end up creating entire groups of people attacking others due to false statements, it may be high time to reign in the AI. But the default for false attributions should not be that, not as long as the warning is clear and obvious: Do not trust it as of yet at all.
In addition to knowing today’s LLMs hallucinate, we currently even get a “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.” right next to its prompt.
I see a case against punishing here, in general. Consider me asking you “What did Mario say?”, and you answering—in private -
“Listen to this sentence—even though it might well be totally wrong: Mario said xxxx.”,
or, even more in line with the ChatGPT situation,
“From what I read, I have the somewhat vague impression that Mario said xxxx—though I might mix this up, so you may really want to double-check.”
Assume Mario has not said xxxx. We still have a strong case for not, in general, punishing you for the above statement. And even if I acted badly in response to your message, so that someone gets hurt, I’d see, a priori, the main blame to fall upon me, not you.
The parallels to the case of ChatGPT[1] suggests to extend a similar reservation about punishing to our current LLMs.
Admittedly, pragmatism is in order. If an LLM’s hallucinations—despite warnings—end up creating entire groups of people attacking others due to false statements, it may be high time to reign in the AI. But the default for false attributions should not be that, not as long as the warning is clear and obvious: Do not trust it as of yet at all.
In addition to knowing today’s LLMs hallucinate, we currently even get a “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.” right next to its prompt.