On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:59 AM Stéphane Rollandin <lecteur at zogotounga.net>
wrote:

>
> > ChatGPT: I do not have personal beliefs or emotions, so I do not have
> > the ability to "know" something to be true or false. However, based on
> > the training data I have been trained on, my responses are influenced by
> > the information I have seen in the past.
> >
> > Our ability to “know” is based neither in our beliefs nor our emotions.
> > A weak theory of mind. It keeps on stating that it can make semantically
> > meaningful responses, responses that are so consistent the appear to be
> > a single predefined response, while many examples show it can certainly
> > generate nonsense.  Have you tried to prove further its “notions” of
> > meaningfulness, its ability to be meaningful, and its “notions” of its
> > fallibility?
>
> Also, its use of "I" implies it has some kind of self-awareness, which
> of course it has not. That's a pretty ugly trick IMO.
>
> Instead of having it issue apologies for being wrong, or poor statements
> like "I do not have personal beliefs", its programmers should instead
> make it clear what kind of system we are dealing with, and have it emit
> things like "remember you are interacting with an automated tool, not a
> conscious being".


+1.  Society is not ready for this level of disguise.

It's a balancing act between usability and safety.  To be usable to
everyone, it has to be natural.  But, to be natural means it will also run
the risk that people will get the wrong idea.  Although, there has never
been a shortage of that, even without AI.

Remember how, in the *original* Star Trek, the computer understood natural
language, but had an electronic-sounding voice.  But, that's an audio
solution.  I'm not sure what a good written solution would be (LCD font?
:)  ).

 - Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20230119/8a1103e5/attachment.html>