zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
I understand the idea behind it: the risks are high and we want to ensure that the AI can not be used for purposes that threatens the survival human civilization. Unfortunately, there is high probability that this agency will be abused from day one: instead of (or in addition to) focusing on the humanity's survival, the agency could be used as a thought police. The AI that allows for the 'wrongthink' will be banned. Only the 'correct think' AI will be licensed to the public.

>>g42gre+Hz1
I mean, yeah, that sounds good. It wouldn't affect your ability to think for yourself and spread your ideas, it would just put boundaries on AI.

I've seen a lot of people completely misunderstand what chat GPT is doing and is capable of. They treat it as an oracle that reveals "hidden truths" or makes infallible decisions based on pure cold logic, both of which are completely wrong. It's just a text jumbler that jumbles text well. Sometimes that text reflects facts, sometimes it doesn't.

But if it has the capability to confidently express lies and convince the general public that those lies are true because "the smart computer said so", then maybe we should be really careful about what we let the "smart computer" say.

Personally, I don't want my kids learning that "Hitler did nothing wrong" because the public model ingested too much garbage from 4chan. People will use chatGPT as a vector for propaganda if we let them, we don't need to make it any easier for them.

>>diputs+mC1
But would you like your kids to learn that there are no fat people, only "differently weight abled"? That being overweight is not bad for you, it just makes you a victim of oppression and deserve, no actually require a sympathy? No smart people, only "mentally privileged" that deserve, no actually require a public condemnation? These are all examples of a 'wrongthink'. It's a long list, but you get the idea.