OpenAI Unveils Plans For Tackling Abuse Ahead of 2024 Elections 87
Sara Fischer reports via Axios: ChatGPT maker OpenAI says it's rolling out new policies and tools meant to combat misinformation and abuse ahead of 2024 elections worldwide. 2024 is one of the biggest election years in history -- with high-stakes races in over 50 countries globally. It's also the first major election cycle where generative AI tools will be widely available to voters, governments and political campaigns. In a statement published Monday, OpenAI said it will lean into verified news and image authenticity programs to ensure users get access to high-quality information throughout elections.
The company will add digital credentials set by a third-party coalition of AI firms that encode details about the origin of images created using its image generator tool, DALL-E 3. The firm says it's experimenting with a new "provenance classifier" tool that can detect AI-generated images that have been made using DALL-E. It hopes to make that tool available to its first group of testers, including journalists, researchers and other tech platforms, for feedback. OpenAI will continue integrating its ChatGPT platform with real-time news reporting globally, "including attribution and links," it said. That effort builds on a first-of-its-kind deal announced with German media giant Axel Springer last year that offers ChatGPT users summaries of select global news content from the company's outlets. In the U.S., OpenAI says it's working with the nonpartisan National Association of Secretaries of State to direct ChatGPT users to CanIVote.org for authoritative information on U.S. voting and elections.
Because generative AI technology is so new, OpenAI says it's still working to understand how effective its tools might be for political persuasion. To hedge against abuse, the firm doesn't allow people to build applications for political campaigning and lobbying, and it doesn't allow engineers to create chatbots that pretend to be real people, such as candidates. Like most tech firms, it doesn't allow users to build applications for its ChatGPT platform that deter people from participating in the democratic process.
The company will add digital credentials set by a third-party coalition of AI firms that encode details about the origin of images created using its image generator tool, DALL-E 3. The firm says it's experimenting with a new "provenance classifier" tool that can detect AI-generated images that have been made using DALL-E. It hopes to make that tool available to its first group of testers, including journalists, researchers and other tech platforms, for feedback. OpenAI will continue integrating its ChatGPT platform with real-time news reporting globally, "including attribution and links," it said. That effort builds on a first-of-its-kind deal announced with German media giant Axel Springer last year that offers ChatGPT users summaries of select global news content from the company's outlets. In the U.S., OpenAI says it's working with the nonpartisan National Association of Secretaries of State to direct ChatGPT users to CanIVote.org for authoritative information on U.S. voting and elections.
Because generative AI technology is so new, OpenAI says it's still working to understand how effective its tools might be for political persuasion. To hedge against abuse, the firm doesn't allow people to build applications for political campaigning and lobbying, and it doesn't allow engineers to create chatbots that pretend to be real people, such as candidates. Like most tech firms, it doesn't allow users to build applications for its ChatGPT platform that deter people from participating in the democratic process.
Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:5, Informative)
I live in a country where 26% of the vote can beat 74% of the vote, as long as those votes are in the right place. That's right, (51% of the votes in 51% of the states) will beat (100% of the vote in 49% of the states *plus* 49% of the vote in 51% of the states).
I bet pointing this out will anger ChatGPT.
Re:Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:5, Informative)
Someone needs to go back to school and learn why we have both a House and Senate.
The founders were afraid of a tyranny of the cities, and rightly so. Otherwise we'd have a simple majority-rules vote for everything.
Re:Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:4, Informative)
The founders didn't come up with our presidential voting system. Back then the states selected electors, and the electors voted for president. The states didn't run an opinion poll titled "the general election" to see which candidate all their electors would be forced to vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Rember though, "back then" was a different concept. It's an old and outdated concept though. Back then these were semi-independent states with a loose federation based on trade and mutual defense, sort of... This all changed though! Civil war. The "feds can't tell us to not be evil!" side lost. The constitution CHANGED, it was amended, the original constitution as it was written no longer applies!! The original constittution has some parts in it that clearly are outdated, or even immoral (pay the pre
Re: (Score:2)
What we have is anti-representation such that more support for a president or bill can cause that bill to fail where with less support it would have passed. Your presence causes the state to get more electors/representatives, but if you're the political minority in your area then "your" representatives fight against your interests "on your behalf". This works the same way that the slave states wanted their slaves to count for 100% of a person when assigning representatives, eventually settling for the 3/5th
Re: (Score:1)
America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. An explanation for anyone that cares to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Constitutional Democratic Republic if you want to be more specific. We vote directly for out representatives (and President, though the electoral college makes that a bit weird).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But we don't. We vote for who our state will tell their electors to vote for president. So if a state has 11 electors, and 49% want "their" elector to vote A but 51% want their elector to vote B, then the state orders all 11 electors to vote B. And for senators, my state at least does not let people vote for who they want to be their senator -- no, people vote for 2 senators, and so 51% gets two senators while 49% gets zero senators.
What we have is a system for intentionally, and unnecessarily, throwing out
Re: (Score:2)
But we don't. We vote for who our state will tell their electors to vote for president. So if a state has 11 electors, and 49% want "their" elector to vote A but 51% want their elector to vote B, then the state orders all 11 electors to vote B.
I wish someone would've told that to the Trump supporters who were protesting his loss every weekend for years, here in Florida. A lot of people really seem to be oblivious to the fact that most states are winner-takes-all when it comes to electoral votes for the president. It's a real strange sort of democratic representation when 51.2% magically becomes 100%, but that's how we roll in the USA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish someone would've told that to the Trump supporters who were protesting his loss every weekend for years, here in Florida. A lot of people really seem to be oblivious to the fact that most states are winner-takes-all when it comes to electoral votes for the president. It's a real strange sort of democratic representation when 51.2% magically becomes 100%, but that's how we roll in the USA.
They understand how it works. What they believe is that in many states, there were election irregularities (and even the breaking of election laws) that resulted in improper voting. Sometimes they also say "election fraud", but the usual meaning (incorrectly counted ballots, illegally registered voters) are only part of a bigger picture. This happened because the pandemic enabled corrupt officials in states to change rules at the last minute.
And some of that about election law is quite true. When it went th
Re: (Score:2)
What they believe is that in many states, there were election irregularities (and even the breaking of election laws) that resulted in improper voting.
The winner-take-all system throws away more votes than any amount of "improper voting" that is supposedly taking place.
Re: (Score:2)
...surre, but which half of the votes they throw away depends on who can cheat just well enough to get their candidate past 50% during the election.
There surely IS cheating going on, otherwise parties wouldn't always insist on recounts just in areas where they control the election boards. This is why the SCOTUS stopped the recounts in 2000, Gore ordered recounts in just Democrat controlled counties, and just watched as Bush's majority slowly eroded.
Re: (Score:2)
In past elections...yes.
But in recent ones, like last time...the margin of victory for Biden in one swing state that tipped the scales his was, was only like 40K votes I think it was?
In a national elections that's a VERY small margin and those numbers of votes could have been swung a number of ways...
If there were irregularities...OR, things external to elections like govt. involvement
Re: (Score:3)
But when it went to the courts, the vast majority of such "clear and visible fraud!" cases were rejected for an utter lack of evidence. The people who believe there was wide spread voter fraud in 2020 that affected the presidential outcome were *wrong*. Even Trump's own officials stated that the election was the most fairly run in US history. We had circuses, almost literally, recounting ballots, looking for bamboo fibers, investigations, commissions, and nothing showed up!
Now there is cheating in electio
Re: (Score:2)
State electors are a pure formality. The electors which are used are the electors of the party that won the popular vote in the state (both parties have their own slate of electors).
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same.
The Republic part is in the Constitution. The Democratic part is at the whim of each state.
Re: (Score:3)
I know it's a right-wing fantasy to install a dictatorship and have congress be appointed, but in reality democracy is a part of our government nationwide
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate this idea that tells people that a republic and a democracy are different things. In general, all republics are democracies.
Who started these ideas, anyway? And, why?
Re: (Score:3)
I really hate this idea that tells people that a republic and a democracy are different things. In general, all republics are democracies.
Who started these ideas, anyway? And, why?
Most people mean "simple (or pure) or direct" democracy when they are trying to explain this. If you ask your average American, they will tell you that they are guaranteed their "one vote" for President under the Constitution. If you remind them of the electoral college, they know it's there but they don't really understand it. Basic civics is not taught much in the schools.
Re:Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:5, Informative)
Someone needs to go back to school and learn why we have both a House and Senate.
Yes, they should. The folks at the Constitutional Convention had already decided on having two bodies for the legislature [cornell.edu]. It was how to determine the composition of these two bodies where things got messy. Initially, it was to be by total population. The small states (i.e. Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut), not the founders, were afraid they would have little to no voice in the government if representation was based solely by population [constitutionus.com]. They demanded equal representation in exchange for ratifying the Constituion. After all, they already had equal representation under The Articles of Confederation and didn't want to lose that representation.
Re: (Score:2)
The other reason for the Senate was to be a low-pass filter on popular moods. The six year staggered terms mean that a passing bit of wildness won't change the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The small states (i.e. Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut), not the founders, were afraid they would have little to no voice in the government if representation was based solely by population [constitutionus.com]. They demanded equal representation in exchange for ratifying the Constitution. After all, they already had equal representation under The Articles of Confederation and didn't want to lose that representation.
And that was an accurate fear. Why join some union where distant population centers get to push you around just by being populous? They were being wise.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Simple democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The United States is a constitutional republic for many reason, thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The US is a wolf and a sheep voting, then a judge telling the wolf it's dinner time.
Re:Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:4, Informative)
Someone needs to go back to school and learn why we have both a House and Senate.
The founders were afraid of a tyranny of the cities, and rightly so. Otherwise we'd have a simple majority-rules vote for everything.
Majority rules is literally how most true modern democracies work, i.e. the ones designed to create some semblance of national consensus rather than being designed to impose the views and values of a historically entrenched minority on the modern majority. The US system is the way it is not because of some fear the Founding Fathers had of a 'tyranny of the cities'. What the Founding Fathers were actually were afraid of was what James Madison called 'The Tyranny of the Majority'. Rural people were actually the vast majority of Americans in 1776 [wikipedia.org] (something like 95% rural 5% city) and many of those rural Americans owned slaves (the Electoral College is structured the way it is partly because of slavery). That baggage still weighs the US down, that and the two party system because changes in demographics have turned city people into the majority (about 80% city vs 20% rural) within a political system designed for a world where rural people were the vast majority. The only reason conservative US SCOTUS judges claim to be 'originalist' or 'literalist' in their approach to law and the constitution is because it serves to maintain this antiquated system that gives an arch-conservative minority far more power in US politics than it would have with proportional representation. However, if we take your point about the Founding Fathers' fear of a 'tyranny of the cities' at face value for a moment; If you create a system where the rural population dominates elections despite being smaller out of fear of a 'dictatorship of the cities', all you are doing is creating the opposite of what you are a afraid of, 'a dictatorship of the countryside' (which is better because???...), that also brings us back to James Madison and what the founding fathers were actually afraid of the 'The Tyranny of the Majority' irrespective of where you live. In most European countries neither a a dictatorship of the cities nor the countryside is a huge issue for the simple reason that they usually have more than two political parties. Rural interests also often form their own party and since most governments are coalitions of two or three out of four or more parties these rural interests normally get a voice despite being rather small simply by being indispensable partners for forming a coalition. Furthermore, rural people also have a voice within the bigger parties because the bigger parties also run candidates in rural communities, they want them to get elected and ignoring the issues of the countryside is not a good way to get somebody elected in the countryside when every representative your party can get elected counts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, it was tyranny of the majority they were afraid of. However I see your point.
There's also the tyranny of the rural as well, and the founders may not have feared that but it is something that is affecting us right now. Not to mention some of those rural states are rigging things so that their few cities actually get less representation. Sounds illegal, and it probably is, but when the people writing the laws are also the ones enforcing it... There's a lot of fear in the old power holders tha
Re:Too bad it won't track the real abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
You might as well have posted "I don't understand basic civics in my country, and am confused and frightened by anything more complicated than direct democracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe I don't like having a system where having more supporters can make a bill or president that would have won, instead lose. If you think I'm confused about this, feel free to look up why the slave states wanted a higher number on the 3/5ths compromise. Anti-representation was on purpose then and it's on purpose now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't like it? Go somewhere else if it's that big a deal.
The US was founded as a republic, as an association of otherwise-sovereign states. The states are not merely "administrative subdivisions" of the US - they are entities of themselves and have an independence and rights in that system that most people don't understand.
The point being: they didn't just change the rules, this is how it's been for nearly 250 years.
"More supporters" HAS NEVER BEEN THE METRIC OF WHO "should win" a US election any more tha
Re: (Score:2)
Could you tell me why you think adding supporters should subtract support? That people should have anti-representation?
If that's not what you meant to argue in favor of, please stop accidentally arguing in favor of anti-representation.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite.
Show me an example how adding more supporters somehow loses an election that otherwise would have been won.
Your original example "why the south wanted a higher number than the 3/5ths compromise" is not it.
The reason the South wanted a higher number was so they could have more votes (and votes they could control) so they could have inordinate power in the House.
The South wanted to count all the slaves as voters, the North wouldn't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as an example of how deleting their own supporters can make someone win: in 2000 Bush beat Gore 271 to 266. In 2000 Texas had 32 electoral college votes, of which 32 went to Bush and 0 to Gore. Also 2.4 million voted for Gore in Texas 2000; if instead they had never been born, Texas would have had only 29 electoral votes. So in Texas 2000, the 2.4 million Gore voters were worth -3 electoral college votes for Gore. This might have put the election at 268 to 269, depending on which states got new electo
Re: (Score:2)
I'll credit the creative example, thanks!
But that's not really gaming the ELECTION, is it?
It's gaming the CENSUS and aside from the obvious massive conspiracy to fraud, requires a decennial sort of advance commitment/planning to cripple states that are presumably locked in for the enemy. Of course, once you do that you're ALSO reducing congressional representation proportionally which - as you point out - those seats would be gained somewhere.
Finally, there's no way on earth any Dem congressanimal would ac
Re: (Score:2)
Don't play dumb, I don't believe a conspiracy involving time machines. You asked me to prove a thing, and I proved it -- Americans have anti-representation, similar to the way slave states wanted more representation "on behalf of" their slaves. Some Americans could better support their political position by having never been born, than by voting. And Americans have had anti-representation every election since the signing of the Constitution, no conspiracy needed, you can check for yourself that elections ha
Re: (Score:2)
"You asked me to prove a thing, and I proved it -- Americans have anti-representation"
The former is true, the latter absolutely not.
You did give a rather creative example of a way that - conceivably - a long range plan to deprecate 'enemy' electoral strongholds could involve actually reducing the number of ones own 'friendly' voters on the rolls. Really, it was a clever example that I've shared with others already.
But to jump from that to 'Americans have anti-representation' is a HUGE leap for which there
Re: (Score:2)
You did give a rather creative example of a way that - conceivably - a long range plan to deprecate 'enemy' electoral strongholds could involve actually reducing the number of ones own 'friendly' voters on the rolls.
Yes, I proved beyond any doubt that for certain people not existing would be more advantageous for them politically, than voting. I call that anti-representation, you call that "the way the system is supposed to be". And as I said, it's been that way since slave states wanted to have more anti-representatives "on behalf of" their slaves.
It also works similarly for the House, where a person's existence contributes representatives to the state, again some people could better support their position by not exis
Because? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're mentally regarded. Get checked.
Legal basis for the complaint (Score:2, Troll)
The Twitter post is truncated, here's the actual text of the complaint:
Overtly beginning January 20, 2021, Joseph Biden has intentionally declined to enforce laws of the United States, in particular relation to the security of our country’s border. Exhibit A, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS THAT HAVE UNDERMINED BORDER SECURITY AND ENCOURAGED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, outlines 64 distinct actions taken by, at the direction, or with the approval of Biden. These actions have provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States contrary to Sec. 3.
Among the actions listed are not just policy decisions but active, intentional acts that are contrary to the laws of the United States, including but not limited to:
Illegal diversion of funds allocated for border wall
Flouting court orders declaring DACA illegal
Illegally declared a moratorium on deportations
Contrary to law, creating unauthorized alternatives to removal
Illegally exempted Unaccompanied Alien Children from Title 42
Illegally instituted Central American Minors Program contrary to federal statute governing family based immigration procedures
Following the Catch and Release protocol contrary to congressional mandate that illegal aliens “shall be detained”
Cancellation of wall construction by Dept. of
Defense as authorized by Congress
Release of over 150,000 aliens without a Notice to Appear in court contrary to law
Issues memorandum that states “the fact an individual is a removable [alien] should [not be the sole] basis of an enforcement action”, contrary to law
suspended large-scale worksite enforcement, a key tool to deter the hiring and employment of illegal aliens, intentionally not enforcing the law
created a program that included alternatives to detention (ATD) plus parole, resulting in “catch and release” for hundreds of thousands of aliens into the U.S. interior after they were encountered at the border (338,000 aliens were released in Fiscal Year 2022 alone) contrary to law
Expanded unlawful parole programs to include individuals from Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Allow Immigration Judges to administratively close or dismiss removal proceedings without any action (something not allowed by statute), resulting in no decision denying asylum.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if all of those allegations are true, they are all personal gripes of someone who hates immigrants and would much prefer Governor Abbot's style of extra-judicial state murder as demonstrated just the other day. None of the allegations can be construed as insurrection.
None of them have anything to do with inciting a mob to attack Congress to disrupt an official proceeding. Not even in the Civil war did the Virginia battle flag fly in congress. It did on Jan 6th. That is insurrection, hence the 1
Re: (Score:2)
All of those "illegal" actions seem well within the scope of the Executive Branch. So some people don't like it and call it illegal. Uh huh.
Re: (Score:3)
You realise the person your responding too is **in favor** of more checks for misinformation? (Which would specifically incldue things like that detect deep fake photo).
Their point was any hallucinations by AI while it attempts to verify election facts, would be under the baseline of what a Trump supporter in 2024 has to believe.
As to be a Trump supporter right now would mean you either believe:
The election was stolen, despite many investigations finding no proof yet only confirming the integrity of the vot
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I expect there will be masses of fake evidence produced about Hunter Biden, and probably also about Trump and electoral fraud.
The danger is that people see it and take action, like the guys who went to politician's homes and pizza parlours thinking that they could reveal some huge conspiracy. We could see a repeat of January 6th, but instead of being directed by Trump himself, they could be directed by others creating fake Trump messages.
Re: (Score:3)
So far, the truth and evidence about Hunter Biden are pretty damning enough, there's no need to fake evidence on him really.
The thing is, if the fake news about Hunter's laptop being Russian planted propaganda had NOT been spread and confirmed by govt people and killed by govt pressure on social media sites....if people had known the truth about it, polls show that Biden would have lost 2020 by a pretty decent percentage.
Re: (Score:3)
By abuse I assume they mean conservative votes being counted?
You mean being over counted [go.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they mean like the 11,780 votes Trump demanded that the Georgia secretary of state find for him.
"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779-vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state." -- the Criminal in Chief, January 2, 2021
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they mean like the 11,780 votes Trump demanded that the Georgia secretary of state find for him.
"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779-vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state." -- the Criminal in Chief, January 2, 2021
Your Trump Derangement Hatred naturally interprets "find votes" as "manufacture false votes". Or are you projecting because that's what you would do? Rather than hearing, "Are you totally fucking sure you counted everything and there aren't some votes for me that got effectively discarded somehow? Please make sure the results are correct!"
Personally, as a conservative voter, I noted way back around September (or maybe even a little earlier, I forget) that Trump would lose. He made some particular speech I w
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, he said "make me win or I put you in jail" not "make sure the count is correct". It wasn't just one sentence. The full phone call is available if you want to listen to it, like I did.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you totally fucking sure you counted everything and there aren't some votes for me that got effectively discarded somehow? Please make sure the results are correct!"
Ahh yes, that's why he specified the exact number of votes that needs to be found, said that he won, repeated every crackpot conspiracy he heard on Twitter as fact - because Trump's main fault is he cares about the truth too much.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you totally fucking sure you counted everything and there aren't some votes for me that got effectively discarded somehow? Please make sure the results are correct!"
Ahh yes, that's why he specified the exact number of votes that needs to be found, said that he won, repeated every crackpot conspiracy he heard on Twitter as fact - because Trump's main fault is he cares about the truth too much.
A side fact indicating how far behind he is, does not constitute a call to manufacture votes. You're deluded.
Even more useless (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, so ChatGPT will become even more useless.
Any time you come near to a prompt that counters left-wing views, it bails to a refusal.
This will only hasten competitors to fill the void of a bot that's hamstrung by political right-think.
Re:Even more useless (Score:4, Informative)
This will only hasten competitors to fill the void of a bot that's hamstrung by political right-think.
I think Microsoft already tried that with "Tay [wikipedia.org]"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even more useless (Score:5, Insightful)
When $myviews are labeled $misinformation, what other conclusion could one come to?
Both sides have pumped tons of misinformation into the public news cycle and social media but only one side gets slammed for it.
For example, how is that "Trump worked for Russia and hired hookers to pee in a hotel bed" thing working out?
That was pushed hard for years until they finally had to admit it was completely fabricated by Hillary's campaign and suddenly vanished with no punishment for anyone pushing it.
Or 51 former intelligence officers pushing that Hunter's laptop was Russian propaganda when the FBI had the laptop for a year and knew it wasn't. And then the post got banned from social media for posting about it despite being 100% truth. Who got punished for that?
So yeah, makes sense. But not in the way you snarkily meant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Both sides have pumped tons of misinformation into the public news cycle and social media but only one side gets slammed for it.
Only one side? Remind me again how many times Trump called the so-called liberal media "fake news"? Oh right, it was over 2,000 times. [independent.co.uk]
The news is always going to be extra full of garbage and mud slinging during an election year, and like that poster further up the thread said, celebs are going to share photoshopped pictures of the candidate they'd prefer you didn't vote for (because we all know the political views of millionaire entertainers align perfectly with that of the average working class American)
Re: (Score:1)
So was anything ever discovered on that laptop that was relevant to the election? All I ever heard from it was various reasons Hunter should not be president, plus something something 'the big guy'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's exactly your problem right there. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid and misinformed and you are the height of intelligence, wisdom and education. They are always wrong and you are always right.
What are the odds you are correct 100% of the time and others are wrong 100% of the time?
I note you studiously ignored my 2 well known examples of the Trump/Russia pee lie and the Hunter laptop Russian propaganda lie. When you have to be blind to what's right in front of you then you're just a
Re: (Score:2)
"51 former intelligence officers pushing that Hunter's laptop was Russian propaganda when the FBI had the laptop for a year and knew it wasn't"
because every time I hear a claim about Hunter Biden's supposed laptop it sounds like the people making the claim thinks he's committed a crime, but charges never get laid.
Wasn't he up
Re: (Score:1)
I don't even know where to start. You really need to keep up on news. Real news.
When you call someone's beliefs nonsense that is no different than calling them stupid. But you knew that. Don't play freshman level rhetoric word games. It isn't a good look for you.
I'm done here. You're not serious and you're not intellectually honest. As we both knew from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know that you're still way smarter than me though.
Re: (Score:1)
No, because your basic understanding of reality and news in general is flat out wrong. I am dumber than a sack of shit but still way smarter than you. You set a super low bar with your lies, misinformation, disinformation, and low rent rhetorical tactics. You got called out and corrected. You still can't account for the 2 big lies I pointed out that you studiously ignore.
Have an ice day.
Re: (Score:2)
You got called out and corrected.
Is that what you think you did? How cute.
Re: (Score:1)
Still waiting for you to defend the 51 intelligence officers who lied about the laptop or the Hillary bought Trump pee files.
But you'll keep studiously ignoring it. I was being polite when I said you got corrected. Since you're still here mouthing off like a grumpy child, I'll call it what it really is. You got clowned. Hard.
Re: (Score:2)
The golden shower thing comes from the Steele Dossier, which seems to be discredited. Here's a sample opinion. [nymag.com]
If this is the Hunter's laptop bit you're all worked up about [cbsnews.com] you've misunderstood the whole issue.
Hunter's laptop never made any real sense which is why it went nowhere. 50 people who would know more about how that all works signed a letter saying exactly that.
You got clowned. Hard.
That sounds like th
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hilarious that you see "tools meant to combat misinformation" and instantly think it's your team that will be disadvantaged.
I find it sad that we're talking about teams. Misinformation harms everyone. Because it sews the distrust that keeps us at each others throats, pretending we're on separate teams, when in reality 99.99999% of us are all on the same team, the "trying to make our way through life while causing as little harm to others as possible" team. The fact that some have fallen into a cycle of pure hatred for others attempting to live that life, to the point they've given up the "causing as little harm to others as poss
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he's attacked for being one of those dirty "Liberals".
Re: (Score:2)
Warren Buffet was pretty clear about it: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” Of course he's attacked for being one of those dirty "Liberals".
Yeah, the big powers don't much care for it when one of their own slips a little truth into the mediasphere. Buffet is one of the few uber-wealthy that I can at least see as a human being most of the time. He seems to have an actual head on his shoulders that's still attached to a beating heart. Most of them seem like robots programmed to accumulate wealth and nothing else matters at all to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you come near to a prompt that counters left-wing views, it bails to a refusal.
I'm just convinced people on the right are just not good at playing the ChatGPT game. Phrase the question the right way and you absolutely can make its responses sound like right-wing talking points. As examples, ask it what are some of the economic disadvantages of transitioning from fossil fuels, or the strengths of a traditional family structure.
Yes, it will usually postface its response with some backpedaling statement along the lines of how despite everything it just said, it's still generally a good
Re: (Score:2)
How does watermarking, real time news, and links to official voting information make it "useless"?
Hallucinations (Score:5, Insightful)
ChatGPT will be used as a high-speed high-volume tool to produce misinformation. That's what the writers will force it to do, and they will edit the results of course for their purpose. That is, after all, basically its entire purpose and how companies will use it: to generate whatever crap they used to have to hire someone to do.
I don't know how much "hallucinations" (which are misinformation generated by ChatGPT by supposed accident) will play a role. But when I first tried out ChatGPT with some simple questions, none of which involved Hillary Clinton or elections at all, back over a year ago when ChatGPT was first made available on a limited basis....one of the first things it came out with was that Hillary Clinton was elected and served as President in 2016.
Now we all laugh or have some other opinipn about that apparent malfunction. When some 6th grader about 5 years from now gets that answer, they will just grow up believing it. And with all the Information Pollution due to AI's writing every article on the web, and the lack of ability to effectively do any Search yourself, or have any confidence in any results.... Well, see this is the real problem with ChatGPT. Misinformation Apocalypse.
Kinda Worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
When the targets of this technology will simply move to technologies not controlled by big tech.
Funny how when you put the squeeze on the free flow of information it tends to leak out from a direction you were not expecting..... Google, Microsoft, Apple honestly are stupid enough to think they are the Gatekeepers. They are minding gates where the sheep pass, not where the wolves roam free.
Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody gives a fuck about anything being real anymore anyway. It tits my preferred narrative? Then it's true. It contradicts my preferred narrative? Then it's fake news.
Case closed. Reality? Truth? Pfft, get out with that dated shit, grandpa, this is politics!
Peak hype yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
We've already seen that social media companies don't give a shit about democracy & will happily support sedition if it makes them money & they can avoid getting prosecuted for it.
Wild guess... (Score:3)
Let me guess, the misinformation will be entire one sided?
Can't wait (Score:2)