My comment was less about dangers of ‘AI’ and more about the influence of lobbyists on legislators.
That said, I do see a risk of convincing chat bots.
People are inherently stupid and gullible. People have a natural tendency to understand things they are told as facts if they don’t already know better.
We already have a massive misinformation problem that could be further exacerbated if chat bots can generate massive volumes of convincing sounding nonsense.
That’s why anything with human interaction is classed as “limited risk” and comes with transparency requirements, that is, ChatGPT needs to tell you that it’s an LLM.
Then, well, humans are already plenty capable of generating massive volumes of convincing sounding nonsense. Whether you hire ChatGPT or morally flexible Indian call centres doesn’t really make much of a difference.
My comment was less about dangers of ‘AI’ and more about the influence of lobbyists on legislators.
That said, I do see a risk of convincing chat bots.
People are inherently stupid and gullible. People have a natural tendency to understand things they are told as facts if they don’t already know better.
We already have a massive misinformation problem that could be further exacerbated if chat bots can generate massive volumes of convincing sounding nonsense.
That’s why anything with human interaction is classed as “limited risk” and comes with transparency requirements, that is, ChatGPT needs to tell you that it’s an LLM.
Then, well, humans are already plenty capable of generating massive volumes of convincing sounding nonsense. Whether you hire ChatGPT or morally flexible Indian call centres doesn’t really make much of a difference.