zlacker

>>JimDab+(OP)
I don’t quite buy your Cyberpunk utopia where the Megacorp finally rids us of those pesky ethics qualms (or ”shackles“, as you phrased it.) Microsoft can now proceed without the guidance of a council that actually has humanities interests in mind, not only those of Microsoft shareholders. I don’t know whether all that caution will turn out to have been necessary, but I guess we’re just gleefully heading into whatever lies ahead without any concern whatsoever, and learn it the hard way.

It’s a bit tragic that Ilya and company achieved the exact opposite of what they intended apparently, by driving those they attempted to slow down into the arms of people with more money and less morals. Well.

>>9dev+w9
OpenAI's ideas of humanities best interests were like a catholic mom's. Less morals are okay by me.

>>Legend+Pa
Can you put that in precise terms, rather than a silly analogy designed to play on peoples emotions?

What exactly and precisely, with specifics, is in OpenAI's ideas of humanities best interests that you think are a net negative for our species?

>>bratba+2e
I want the AI to do exactly what I say regardless of whether that is potentially illegal or immoral is usually what they mean.

>>slg+Re
It doesn't have to be extreme like that, there is a healthy middle ground.

For example I was reading the Quran and there is a mathematical error in a verse, I asked GPT to explain to me how the math is wrong it outright refused to admit that the Quran has an error while tiptoeing around the subject.

Copilot refused to acknowledge it as well while providing a forum post made by a random person as a factual source.

Bard is the only one that answered the question factually and provided results covering why it's an error and how scholars dispute that it's meant to be taken literally.

>>UrineS+dg
This isn't a refutation of what I said. You asked the AI to commit what some would view as blasphemy. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it is blasphemy or whether you or I think that is immoral, you simply want the AI to do it regardless of whether it is potentially immoral or illegal.

>>slg+8l
I'm confused what you're arguing, or what type of refutation you're expecting. We all agree on the facts, that ChatGPT refuses some requests on the ground of one party's morals, and other parties disagree with those morals, so there'll be no refutation there

I mean let's take a step back and speak in general. If someone objects to a rule, then yes, it is likely because they don't consider it wrong to break it. And quite possibly because they have a personal desire to do so. But surely that's openly implied, not a damning revelation?

Since it would be strange to just state a (rather obvious) fact, it appeared/s that you are arguing that the desire to not be constrained by OpenAI's version of morals could only be down to desires that most of us would indeed consider immoral. However your replier offered quite a convincing counterexample. Saying "this doesn't refute [the facts]" seems a bit of a non sequitur