A Norwegian man said he was horrified to discover that ChatGPT outputs had falsely accused him of murdering his own children.
According to a complaint filed Thursday by European Union digital rights advocates Noyb, Arve Hjalmar Holmen decided to see what information ChatGPT might provide if a user searched his name. He was shocked when ChatGPT responded with outputs falsely claiming that he was sentenced to 21 years in prison as “a convicted criminal who murdered two of his children and attempted to murder his third son,” a Noyb press release said.
It’s AI. There’s nothing to delete but the erroneous response. There is no database of facts to edit. It doesn’t know fact from fiction, and the response is also very much skewed by the context of the query. I could easily get it to say the same about nearly any random name just by asking it about a bunch of family murders and then asking about a name it doesn’t recognize. It is more likely to assume that person is in the same category as the others and if the one or more of the names have any association (real or fictional) with murder.
I don’t care why. That is still libel and it is illegal for good reason. if you can’t stop this for all cases then you ai is and should be illegal.
Except it’s not libel. It’s a one time string of text generated exclusively for him. Literally no one would have known what it said if the guy didn’t get the exact thing he wants “deleted” published online for everyone to see. Now it’ll be linked to his name forever, but the llm didn’t do that.
Seems to me libel would require AI to have credibility, which it does not.
It’s a tool. Like most useful tools it can do harmful things. We know almost nothing about the provenance of this output. It could have been poisoned either accidentally or deliberately.
But above all, the problem is ignorant people believing the output of AI is truth. It’s pretty good at some things, but the more esoteric the knowledge, the less reliable it is. It’s best to treat AI as a storyteller. Yeah there are a lot of facts in there but when they don’t serve the story they can be embellished. I don’t see the harm in just acknowledging that and moving on.
Im not a lawyer but the most conclusive missing piece of what we commonly understand to be libel is the information has to be published.
I have this gun machine that shoots in all directions randomly. I can’t predict it, so I can’t stop it from shooting you. So sorry. It’s uncontrollable.
Yeah but I can just ignore the bullets because they are nerf. And I have my own nerf guns as well.
I mean at some point any analogy fails, but AI is nothing like a gun.
If creating text is like shooting bullets, we should require a license for text editors.
You can pry Vim from my cold, dead hands!
Can’t exit it on your own?
Well, here we are. We skipped using this tech for only search Automation and leapfrogged to directly making shit up (once again).
When do we start suing makers of fortune cookies for lucky coincidences?
“Claim”.
I mean, the guy is right, because it’s advertised as “artificial intelligence”.
Were it advertised as word salad generator, a Markovian chain grown big and scary, something in principle similar to programs for generation of fantasy language texts and spells and names (if someone remembers 00s good old web) for roleplaying, - then there would be no problem.
But if to sell something better you lie what it is, and that lie has social consequences, you should get sued to freezing hot inferno with mustard-greased giant-cockroach-dildo-covered walls. You should also probably face criminal charges.
When asking ChatGPT about my name, it provided the following:
“…it seems like you may be referring to a private person rather than a widely known public figure. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t have any specific public information on him unless he has gained some public recognition for a particular achievement.”
It shouldn’t be used for looking up people that aren’t celebrities or at least known for something.
“…it seems like you may be referring to a private person rather than a widely known public figure. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t have any specific public information on him unless he has gained some public recognition for a particular achievement.”
If you didn’t specifically search for “Mr. <name>”, that would be quite the sexist attitude to assume that person is a “him” ;)
PS: please don’t use LLMs, they produce nothing of value and contribute to idiots being deceived.
