I see what you’re getting at, but we have differing views as to what constitutes ‘evil’. Cyanide isn’t evil because it can kill a person, just as an oven isn’t evil when it burns the roast dinner.

Without possession of a level of consciousness akin to ours, good and evil aren’t really possible. An inanimate object can’t make a decision to produce a negative outcome - nor a positive one for that matter. They can only be used by us to bring about an outcome. LLM’s have been built to be ingratiating and as a result they are addictive to an extent for those that use them.

ChatGPT’s fundamental design was crafted by humans, under instruction by humans, under leadership by Musk and Altman. They carry a good part of the responsibility and blame for that kid’s death. The machine was only doing what it was created for - just as the rope was.

The word ‘fault’ is commonly used interchangeably with ‘responsible’. Following your described definition, I agree that LLM’s are faulty, and they can be at ‘fault’.

I invoked the ethical dilemma as it’s almost universally understood that it’s a scenario forcing an individual to make a decision. I’ve never before heard someone blame the trolley. The brakes are broken? Come now, if we’re going to be so semantic about it, a human should have regularly inspected the brakes and subsequently had them repaired.

I appreciate your explanation of your viewpoint. Cheers.

Machines are capable of what their design parameters allow or can be manipulated by a user to a accomplish. In the trolley problem, any outcome is not the fault of the trolley itself.

Funny as the mosquito example is, they aren’t evil. Just as wolves aren’t evil for hunting deer. Animals may not possess consciousness as you or I, they are alive and are driven by biological necessity. Machines on the other hand, aren’t.

Interesting perspective. I’m on board with blaming the creators, but I’m leaning away from blaming ChatGPT itself as it is just a machine.

A machine used incorrectly, to be sure, and we’d be better off without it certainly, but the machine carries no fault its existence. It isn’t conscious after all, it’s akin to a T85 inside a vending machine.

Only ChatGPT, or also its creators?

The Egg, by Andy Weir.

It’s also on YouTube in various forms. Kurzgesagt, for example, has a version in their animation style.

18 years for one incident might be too much, but this is only about a month per desecrated body.

At least skim the article.

Presumably such a site would be visually obvious as parody. Having it give jokey answers in as a caricature would be one thing. If you dressed it up as a professional legal advice service for opinions on criminal law from Alan Shore, that could be problematic.

At a certain point of information sharing, we should want a high bar for the ones providing the answers. When asking nuanced questions, we should want for the answer to come from knowledge, not memory. I made an example in this other comment.

I’m not sure I agree with your ‘right answer’ bit. Personally, I’d prefer dumb people to be protected in a similar way that I want the elderly protected from losing their savings from an email scam.

‘Should I use one teaspoon of salt in this recipe, or two?’

Two is ideal.

‘Do dogs like chicken wings?’

Wild dogs regularly hunt small animals like hare or chicken for food.

One of these answers results in a bad cake, the other results in a hurt dog. Potentially inaccurate answers aren’t much of a problem when the stakes are low, but even a simple question about what to feed a pet could end with a negative outcome.

I could see the argument for things that aren’t particularly important, but to continue with the legal example, it seems akin to asking a practicing lawyer a question and asking someone that watched Boston Legal when it aired and can quote James Spader.

Unfortunately, with the potential for a hallucinatory response, anything beyond quite simplistic queries shouldn’t be relied on with more weight than a crutch of toothpicks.

America’s favourite chocolate, according to this post I just happened across.

This seems to be plausible only without significant wind in the middle of the ocean. If huge wind barriers can be set up without being blown over, then maybe this can be as ‘very realistic’ as this is claimed to be.

It’ll be cool to see in practice though.

Oh sure, I’d be happy as a peach counting pigeons for an afternoon. Trouble is it’s only for an afternoon where the grocer had me on a two week schedule.

Then again, might not be hired to count pigeons again when I put twelve million pigeons on my tps report haha.

I don’t know anything about the writer, but this sure reads like the machine is doing more good than bad. Even touting that human jobs are being created, as if counting pigeons for an afternoon is sufficient to make up for having been replaced at the grocers by a machine.

Also, wouldn’t the machine needing to know how many pigeons you saw only need to know that because some other person asked it? In effect, isn’t this just ‘middle-machining’ a gig job between two people?

I half want to give it a go and just provide wrong results from my couch, collecting some of those sweet VC bucks.

Hey, be nice to the big company. This policy of shooting an email doesn’t undermine the profitability their addictive money machine. Won’t you think of the shareholders Mister Curtis?

It seems a little funny to claim I am here upholding an agenda. What I am is unsure. Unsure where you’ve read my moving goalposts when I have just stated I stand by my initial comment - which in fact does not lay the blame on the hospital, but the for profit healthcare industry in the United States.

Tell you the truth, this thread has drifted into a commentary on my word choices and my general disinterest in disclosing my career history to someone on the internet, so bringing this to a polite close isn’t something I’m willing to try for any further.

Consider my insufferable self to be backed down, apologetic, and thoroughly defeated.

Only a matter of time before these advanced printers begin printing themselves, then we’ll have to develop a 4D printer to fight them off!

That’s quite interesting. It reminds me of a group of people that are building a castle using period correct construction and material gathering techniques. I saw a Tom Scott video about it, I think they started in the 90’s or something.

Very cool to hear about. I’m glad people do these things, even if it’s sort of the first I’m learning of it. I’ll keep an eye out for such events in my area in the future. Thanks!

And that’s not counting the armor.

Are you a time travelling hedge knight?

What is it you’re getting up to that you could have a suitcase full of historically accurate clothing in any place outside a museum? Only thing that comes to my mind is renaissance festivals or similar, but I wouldn’t have thought accuracy was taken that seriously.

I don’t make it a habit to preface a general comment by preemptively stating why I may be qualified to weigh in on a topic. This is the internet after all, not really a formal setting. My qualifications are just as irrelevant as yours here. While we may have insight that others lack, we aren’t doing anything but commenting on an article.

Without going point for point as you have done, it should suffice to say that even now after I have reread this thread and what I wrote previously, the underpinning of my initial comment stands - these people were failed, and it shouldn’t have happened.