zlacker

The problem here is to equate AI speech with human speech. The AI doesn't "speak", only humans speak. The real slippery slope for me is this tendency of treating ChatGPT as some kind of proto-human entity. If people are willing to do that, then we're screwed either way (whether the AI is outputting racist content or excessively PI content). If you take the output of the AI and post it somewhere, it's on you, not the AI. You're saying it; it doesn't matter where it came from.

>>low_te+(OP)
AI will be in the fore front in multiple elections globally in a few years.

And it'll likely be doing it with very little input, and generate entire campaigns.

You can claim that "people" are the ones responsible for that, but it's going to overwhelm any attempts to stop it.

So yeah, there's a purpose to examine how these machines are built, not just what the output is.

>>low_te+(OP)
Youre saying that the problem will be people using AI to persuade other people that the AI is 'super smart' and should be held in high esteem.

Its already being done now with actors and celebrities. We live in this world already. AI will just make this trend so that even a kid in his room can anonymously lead some cult for nefarious ends. And it will allow big companies to scale their propaganda without relying on so many 'troublesome human employees'.

>>low_te+(OP)
Yes, but this distinction will not be possible in the future some people are working on. This future will be such that whatever their "safe" AI says is not ok will lead to prosecution as "hate speech". They tried it with political correctness, it failed because people spoke up. Once AI makes the decision they will claim that to be the absolute standard. Beware.