You seem to assume it's negative information about people. If it decides to say that some quack hocking raw almonds as cancer cures is FDA approved it's extremely harmful.
Hopefully it's not that bad, but there's clearly a large inbetween here and I wouldn't be surprised if it's over the line.
That's before you even get into defamation cases.
Excuse the link, the big papers have awful popovers, this one seemed acceptable...
https://decrypt.co/125712/chatgpt-wrongly-accuses-law-profes...
I don't trust AI and probably never will. I consider ChatGPT to be merely a PC version of 4chan's infamous /b/ board, which carries the disclaimer "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. See also it’s lasting legacy in the current Italian prime minister, Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, and AfD’s electoral successes in Germany.
NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built. Their rhetoric in the 30s was not as direct and violent as their later actions, that doesn't mean they weren't still Nazis.
The first concentration camp, Nohra, opened in 1933, the year the Nazis took power. The more well known Dachau was also opened that year.
Dachau was a concentration camp located in a Munich suburb that a large number of prisoners survived (but a lot did not) and were even sometimes (but not often) released from. Really bad, but nothing that awful governments hadn’t done before - in fact, was being done by our eventual allies to the East at the same time.
Auschwitz was an extermination camp (Vernichtungslager), located in a distant corner of Poland that only a tiny fraction of people sent there survived. These camps and system were a new horror for the world, and the center of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Those were planned at the beginning of 1941 (Wannsee Conference), so yes, put into operation about a decade after the Nazis came to power.
Some places that were initially set up as work (to death) camps were later turned into outright extermination camps.
The Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 was about as effective as the January 16 assault, and just as comically incompetent. But there was a lot of sympathy for the far-right terrorists among the German judiciary, just as there is today in the US. The prosecutors and judges who could have stopped the movement in its tracks instead chose to take it easy on the perpetrators, just like today.
Now we get to wait ten years to see where, or if, these two convergent timelines diverge.
I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers.
Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for about a decade or so prior to ~2010. Unfortunately, the “problem” of internet free speech seems to have been solved and now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win and what type of fresh authoritarian hell awaits on the other side.
If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”
I'd argue neither side has a stellar record today, but it's the other that's more speech stifling...
So... is this just a case of user error? Or maybe the FTC needs to step in and require a larger font size?
We all already treat the internet at large as a source of "usually correct but not always" information, and people just need to take the ChatGPT disclaimer to heart and not treat it like some oracle. I imagine articles like these will fade over time as society finds lies coming from the "makes-up-lies-sometimes-machine" (ChatGPT) as boring and as common place as the many websites full of lies we already have.
My significant other, an otherwise very intelligent women, will ask ChatGPT health questions. She knows it might be wrong, but does it anyways to debug her health. I try to point out that even getting suggested a bad diagnosis is very dangerous. The advice it gives has way less nuanced than say the healthMD which has it owns flaws. And unlike coding questions, you can't assume health advice is right until you prove it wrong.
Luckily, ChatGPT and Isabel almost always agree in my tests.
Havent heard this complaint before. And I wouldn’t really call this harmful to consumers. If anything its harmful to the subject, but consumers in general. But even so it doesnt meet the definition of libel. How harmful is it really?
Of all the complaints against OpenAI, absolutely none of them seem to be what I think really matters. And that is OpenAI tweaking it to be politically correct and geared to wherever they fall on the overton window. Its a tool. It should be sharp. And we should expect more than of its users leat we want dumber ones.