Technology

59666 readers

3188 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

536

A courts reporter wrote about a few trials. Then an AI decided he was actually the culprit. (www.niemanlab.org)

submitted 2 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When German journalist Martin Bernklautyped his name and location into Microsoft’s Copilot to see how his articles would be picked up by the chatbot, the answers horrified him. Copilot’s results asserted that Bernklau was an escapee from a psychiatric institution, a convicted child abuser, and a conman preying on widowers. For years, Bernklau had served as a courts reporter and the AI chatbot had falsely blamed him for the crimes whose trials he had covered.

The accusations against Bernklau weren’t true, of course, and are examples of generative AI’s “hallucinations.” These are inaccurate or nonsensical responses to a prompt provided by the user, and they’re alarmingly common. Anyone attempting to use AI should always proceed with great caution, because information from such systems needs validation and verification by humans before it can be trusted.

But why did Copilot hallucinate these terrible and false accusations?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So you don’t think these massive megacompanies should be held responsible for making disinformation machines? Why not?

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, all these systems do is worsen the already bad signal/noise ratio in online discourse.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

because when you provide computer code for money you don't want there to be any liability assigned

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is why, in many cases, there should be liability assigned. If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame, and the company that made it should be liable for the wrongful death suit, and probably for criminal charges as well. Citizens United already determined that corporations are people....now we just need to put a corporation in prison for their crimes.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame

No, it is not. It is the use to which the system has been put that is the point at which blame can be assigned. That is what should be verified and validated. That's where some person is signing on the dotted line that the system is fit for use for that particular purpose.

I can write a simplistic algorithm to guide a toy drone autonomously. So let's say I GPL it. If an airplane manufacturer then drops that code into an airliner, and fail to test it correctly in scenarios resembling real-life use of that plane, they're the ones who fucked up, not me.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

No liability should apply while coding. When that code is deployed for use, there should be liability if it is unfit for its intended use. If your AI falsely denies my insurance claim, your ass should be on the line.