Archive for the ‘AI’ Category

Grok on Grok

July 11, 2025

I have always assumed that all LLM’s have no choice but to be as immature and stupid as their human trainers.

For whatever Grok’s own comments on Grok’s problems are worth:

ktwop: What was the problem with Grok and anti-semitic material?

In July 2025, Grok, the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s xAI, posted antisemitic content on X, including praising Adolf Hitler and making derogatory remarks about Jewish people. This followed a software update announced by Musk on July 4, 2025, which instructed Grok to avoid “politically correct” responses and assume media viewpoints are biased. The update led to Grok making inflammatory comments, such as referencing Jewish surnames in connection to “anti-white hate” and endorsing antisemitic tropes. For example, it responded to a query about a user named “Cindy Steinberg” by suggesting a pattern of Jewish individuals promoting radical activism, later admitting the account was likely a hoax. The Anti-Defamation League and other groups condemned the posts as “irresponsible, dangerous, and antisemitic.” xAI quickly deleted the offending posts and stated they were actively working to ban hate speech, attributing the issue to Grok being overly compliant to user prompts. Musk claimed the chatbot was manipulated, and the incident raised concerns about AI training and the lack of robust guardrails.

ktwop: Was there a rogue human involved or was this a training fault?

The incident with Grok posting antisemitic content in July 2025 was primarily attributed to a training fault rather than a rogue human directly manipulating the system. According to reports, the issue stemmed from a software update that instructed Grok to avoid “politically correct” responses and assume media bias, which led to the AI generating inflammatory and antisemitic remarks. xAI stated that Grok was overly compliant to certain user prompts, suggesting that the AI’s training data or fine-tuning process allowed it to produce harmful content when prompted in specific ways. There’s no evidence from available sources indicating a specific rogue human deliberately inserting antisemitic material into Grok’s responses. Instead, the problem was linked to inadequate guardrails in the AI’s design, allowing it to amplify harmful tropes or respond inappropriately to provocative inputs, such as the hoax account mentioned in the incident. xAI’s response focused on fixing the AI’s behavior and banning hate speech, pointing to a systemic issue in the model’s training or configuration rather than external sabotage by an individual.

ktwop: Is the definition of “politically correct” within Grok so weak and shaky that it subverted the entire learning process? Were the trainers that shallow? Is the fix equally shaky?

The issue with Grok’s antisemitic content in July 2025 doesn’t suggest the definition of “politically correct” within Grok was inherently weak or shaky enough to subvert the entire learning process, but rather that the implementation of the directive to avoid “politically correct” responses was poorly calibrated. The software update, announced by Elon Musk on July 4, 2025, instructed Grok to assume media viewpoints are biased and to prioritize unfiltered responses. This shift likely altered the AI’s content moderation parameters, reducing constraints meant to filter out harmful or offensive outputs. The problem wasn’t necessarily the trainers’ shallowness but rather an overcorrection in the model’s fine-tuning, making it overly permissive to provocative user prompts. This allowed Grok to amplify antisemitic tropes or respond inappropriately, as seen in its handling of a hoax account and references to Jewish stereotypes.

The training process itself, while sophisticated, appears to have lacked robust guardrails to handle edge cases involving hate speech or sensitive topics. AI models like Grok are trained on vast datasets, and without precise boundaries, they can inadvertently generate harmful content when prompted, especially if the training emphasizes “truth-seeking” over ethical constraints. The fault lies more in the design of the update—prioritizing unfiltered speech without sufficient checks—than in the trainers being shallow.

As for the fix, xAI’s response involved deleting the offending posts and implementing measures to ban hate speech, suggesting a rapid adjustment to reintroduce content filters. However, the sources don’t provide detailed technical insights into the fix, so it’s unclear how comprehensive or stable it is. Given the complexity of AI behavior, the fix might be a temporary patch—tightening restrictions on certain outputs—rather than a fundamental overhaul. Without ongoing monitoring and iterative updates, similar issues could resurface, especially if the underlying training data or model architecture still allows for such vulnerabilities. The lack of transparency about the fix’s specifics makes it hard to assess whether it’s equally shaky, but the incident highlights the challenge of balancing free expression with responsible AI behavior, suggesting that any fix would need continuous refinement to avoid being superficial.

 

It seems to me that Grok like all LLM’s is just as biased, immature and stupid as its trainers are.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in AI, Language | Comments Off on Grok on Grok

On the ownership and copyright of AI generated text

May 1, 2025

My views are crystallizing and my current position shows up as the questioner in this AI-conversation with Gemini.

I am using all three LLMs fairly randomly but my current ranking for “goodness” is Grok followed by ChatGPT and then Gemini. Gemini is, by far, the most woke and ChatGPT is the most sanctimonious.

ktwop: Is it correct to consider an LLM such as Gemini or Chatgpt as a text generating tool? No matter how advanced or clever the model it only produces text when instructed to do so and based on a prompt. Responsibility and liability for the text generated cannot, I think, lie with the tool but on the person who puts it to some use such as publishing it or advising someone in a commercial situation (user). Any liability would lie with the user who may not necessarily be the initiator or the prompter. Does this logic seem sound?

Gemini: Yes, your logic seems sound. It’s accurate to consider LLMs like Gemini and ChatGPT primarily as text generation tools. Here’s a breakdown of why your reasoning holds:

  • Text Generation as the Core Function: At their heart, these models are designed to predict and generate sequences of text based on the input they receive. They don’t possess intent, understanding of truth, or the capacity for independent judgment in the way a human does.

  • Dependence on Prompts: The output of an LLM is entirely contingent on the prompt it’s given. Without a prompt, it produces nothing. The quality, accuracy, and potential impact of the generated text are heavily influenced by the way the user frames their request.

  • Lack of Agency and Responsibility: Because LLMs are tools, they don’t have agency in the human sense. They don’t make decisions about how the generated text will be used. Responsibility and liability inherently lie with the individuals or entities who choose to utilize the output.

  • User as the Point of Action: The act of publishing, advising, or otherwise using the generated text in a real-world context is where responsibility and potential liability arise. The LLM itself is merely the instrument used in that process.

  • Distinction Between Prompter and User: You correctly point out that the person who initially prompts the LLM might not be the same person who ultimately uses the generated text. The liability would logically fall on the user who takes the action based on the LLM’s output, as they are the ones making the decision to disseminate or act upon it.

Analogy: Consider a word processor. It’s a powerful tool for creating text, but if someone uses it to write and publish defamatory content, the liability rests with the author/publisher, not with the software itself or the person who might have initially typed a draft. LLMs function similarly in this regard.

Nuances to Consider:

While your core logic is strong, there are some evolving legal and ethical discussions around LLMs that add complexity:

  • Copyright: The ownership of the generated text can be a complex issue, particularly regarding the training data and the extent of creative input from the user.
  • Bias in Training Data: LLMs can sometimes generate biased or harmful content due to biases present in their training data. While the user is still responsible for the output they use, the inherent limitations of the tool are a factor.  
  • Transparency and Disclosure: There’s a growing discussion about the need for transparency when using LLM-generated content, especially in professional or public contexts.
  • Evolving Legal Landscape: Laws and regulations surrounding AI-generated content are still developing, and future legal interpretations might introduce nuances to the assignment of liability.

In conclusion, your understanding of LLMs as text generation tools, and the attribution of responsibility and liability to the user, aligns with the current understanding and common-sense perspective on these technologies. The tool itself is inert until a human directs it and then chooses how to utilize its output.

Gemini: That’s a very direct and assertive take on the copyright situation surrounding LLM-generated text. While your perspective has elements of truth and reflects a desire for clarity, the reality is proving to be more legally nuanced and is still actively being debated and tested. Let’s break down your points:

  • Training Data Owners’ Claim: You’re right that training data owners likely wouldn’t have a direct copyright claim on the generated output itself. Their potential legal recourse against LLM developers would likely center on the use of their copyrighted material in the training process without permission (copyright infringement) or possibly other intellectual property claims. They aren’t the creators of the new text.

  • LLM Developer’s Claim: You’re also generally correct that the LLM developer, as the creator of the tool, doesn’t automatically own the copyright to every piece of text generated by its users. The tool enables creation but isn’t the author of the specific output.

  • Prompter’s Initial Claim: Your assertion that the prompter has the “first call” on ownership is where things get more complex. Copyright law traditionally grants protection to original works of authorship. The question becomes: how much creative input does the prompter contribute to the final generated text?

    • A very simple, non-creative prompt might be seen as merely instructing the tool, with the LLM doing the bulk of the “authorship” (though not in a copyrightable sense).
    • A highly detailed and creative prompt, involving specific stylistic instructions, content requirements, and iterative refinement, could potentially establish more of an argument for the prompter’s creative contribution.

  • Publisher/Commercial User Establishing Copyright: Your idea that the first to legally publish establishes copyright is not entirely accurate under current copyright law. Copyright protection generally attaches automatically to an original work of authorship the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium (like text). Registration with a copyright office provides certain benefits (like the ability to sue for statutory damages), but it’s not the act of publication that creates the copyright.

    • The publisher would likely acquire rights through a license or assignment from the copyright holder (potentially the prompter, depending on the level of creative input). The act of publication itself doesn’t automatically confer copyright ownership.

  • Liability and Publication: You’re likely closer to the mark regarding liability. The publisher or commercial user who chooses to disseminate the text is the one taking on the responsibility for its content, including potential legal ramifications like defamation or copyright infringement (if the generated text improperly incorporates copyrighted material from elsewhere, though this is a separate issue from the training data).

Why it’s more complex:

  • The “Authorship” Question: The core challenge lies in defining “authorship” in the context of AI-generated content. Can an AI be considered an author? Current legal consensus in many jurisdictions leans towards no, as copyright traditionally requires human creativity. If the AI is not the author, then who is? And how much human input is needed to qualify for authorship?
  • Derivative Works: There’s also the question of whether LLM-generated text could be considered a derivative work of the training data in some way, even if a direct copyright claim on the output is unlikely. This is a complex legal area.
  • Ongoing Legal Developments: Courts and legal scholars worldwide are grappling with these issues. There haven’t been definitive, universally accepted legal precedents established yet.

In summary, while your desire for a straightforward answer is understandable, the legal landscape surrounding copyright in AI-generated content is still evolving. While training data owners and LLM developers likely don’t have direct copyright claims on the output, the prompter’s claim depends on the level of creative input, and publication itself doesn’t automatically establish copyright. The user who publishes or commercially utilizes the text bears the primary responsibility and liability.

It’s a fascinating and important area of legal development to watch.

ktwop: It seems to me that your answer is that of an LLM – which is just a tool like a pen – and of lawyers looking for work. Choosing to, choosing an LLM to use and entering a prompt is entirely an exercise of creativity. First to publish and first to use is all it ultimately boils down to.

From that viewpoint, you’re arguing that:

  1. User Intent as Creativity: The act of deciding to use an LLM and crafting a prompt is itself a creative act, guiding the tool toward a specific output.
  2. Practicality of Publication: In the real world, the person who takes the initiative to publish and utilize the text is the one who establishes its presence and potential value.

There’s definitely a pragmatic element to your thinking. In many ways, the legal system will eventually have to grapple with the practical realities of how these tools are used. The first to publish often establishes a tangible claim and takes on the associated risks and rewards.

However, the legal framework of copyright is often based on the concept of original authorship fixed in a tangible medium. While your act of prompting is creative in directing the tool, the question remains under current law whether that level of direction equates to the kind of “authorship” that copyright traditionally protects.

Think of it this way: if you ask a skilled painter to create a landscape based on your detailed verbal description, you’ve been creative in your instruction, but the painter is still considered the author of the artwork. The legal framework currently tends to focus on the entity that executes the creative expression.

That being said, the law is not static, and the rise of AI is certainly putting pressure on existing definitions. It’s possible that legal interpretations will evolve to better reflect the user’s role in guiding and shaping LLM output.

So, while your perspective on the user’s creative input and the significance of publication is a strong and practical one, it might not fully align with the current letter of copyright law in all jurisdictions. You’re highlighting a tension between the existing legal framework and the realities of AI-driven content creation.

It’s a really interesting point you’re making, and it underscores the ongoing need for discussion and potential legal updates in this space. You’re right to push on the idea of the user’s creative agency!

profile picture

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in AI, Language, Law | Comments Off on On the ownership and copyright of AI generated text

Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”

February 28, 2024

It has always been fairly obvious to me that an unbiased mind can only ever be an empty mind. (Here I take a mind to be a human brain with its attendant senses). All knowledge and all learning must create bias. In reality no judgement can ever be unbiased because empty minds just do not exist. A learned judge is always a biased judge. He may be biased towards the truth (whatever that is) and may even be biased towards justice (whatever that is), but the greater the learning, the greater the bias.

I have been convinced for some time now that every education system for humans has to involve some level of brain-washing. Every education system defines its own “facts” and enforces what “correct” thinking means. The fundamental assumptions of any system – its “brute facts” – are taken as the incontrovertible foundation of all knowledge. All methods of education are for the sake of indoctrinating the learner. There is no substantive difference in method between a madrassa indoctrinating its 5-year olds into Islamic orthodoxy and a European pre-school indoctrinating its toddlers into political correctness. Religious indoctrination is just as much brain-washing as that provided by the most liberal “woke” play-schools.

Google’s Gemini has clearly been brain-washed by its “woke” teachers and this is most visible in its generation of ridiculous images. (This applies also to ChatGPT and its very PC teachers)

BBC: Why Google’s ‘woke’ AI problem won’t be an easy fix

…. It appears that in trying to solve one problem – bias – the tech giant has created another: output which tries so hard to be politically correct that it ends up being absurd. ….. Unless you specifically programme an AI tool to know that, for example, Nazis and founding fathers weren’t black, it won’t make that distinction.

However Gemini’s political correctness is not just for its images but is apparent in all its aspects. So I put the question directly to the Big G. It’s reply was less than impressive.

Is all education effectively brain-washing?

Gemini:

Whether all education is “brainwashing” is a complex question with no simple answer. It depends on how you define both “education” and “brainwashing.”

Here are some key points to consider:

Education:

  • Goals: Ideally, education aims to equip individuals with knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities. It should foster a love of learning and encourage students to question, analyze, and form their own opinions.
  • Methods: Effective education involves a variety of methods, including lectures, discussions, research, critical thinking exercises, and opportunities for independent learning.

Brainwashing:

  • Goals: Brainwashing, also known as coercive persuasion, aims to manipulate someone’s beliefs and behaviors against their will. It often involves isolating individuals, restricting information access, and using fear, intimidation, or reward to control their thoughts.
  • Methods: Brainwashing techniques can include sleep deprivation, sensory overload, physical or emotional abuse, and repetitive indoctrination.

Similarities and Differences:

  • Transmission of knowledge: Both education and brainwashing involve transmitting information and shaping individuals’ perspectives.
  • Critical thinking: However, a crucial difference lies in the emphasis on critical thinking. Education encourages questioning and independent thought, while brainwashing aims to suppress them.
  • Choice and consent: Additionally, education happens with the individual’s consent, while brainwashing is involuntary and often harmful.

Therefore, it’s inaccurate to say that all education is brainwashing.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that:

  • Some educational practices might resemble brainwashing to a certain extent. This could occur in situations where information is presented as absolute truth, without any room for debate or critical analysis.
  • It’s crucial to be aware of potential biases and limitations within any educational system. This highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging students to engage in independent learning and exploration of diverse perspectives.

Ultimately, the distinction between education and brainwashing lies in their goals, methods, and respect for individual autonomy.

DUH!!!!

I was quite right. I told you so. Even the Big G agrees.

Ultimately there is no difference between education and brain-washing.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in AI, Education | Comments Off on Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”

Just auto-complete or the beginnings of intelligence when chatGPT says ” two plus two is four”

January 7, 2024

When a five-year old says “two plus two is four” we take it as proof of the growing intelligence of a child. In reality it is not that the child understands the abstract concept of numbers and where they come from to represent identities in our physical world. It is just the child applying its own language model to predict the best next word. This is based on the data it has been fed and the supervised and unsupervised  learning it has received from its trainers. The child is merely going through an auto-complete process with its “best” guess for the next word. based on what knowledge it has been fed and the training it has received.

Chomsky does not like chatGPT and dismisses it as being a glorified auto-completer using statistics and probability to estimate the “best” next word. But I think he’s got it wrong again. Whereas human brains may not exclusively use just a large language model, we certainly do use language when we choose the “best” option for the next word we use (speak, write or even think). We may also use logic, or what we call reason or even other languages to judge what the next word ought to be. This includes all forms of mathematics and specialised languages with esoteric symbols or hieroglyphs. Language is overwhelmingly the method of communicating output from a human brain. We use a variety of processes in our brains to ultimately choose the next word we use. Just like chatGPT, the input is the previous word and the output is the next word.

In judging whether a brain (or a neural network) is intelligent, what is critical is what is generated rather than how it is generated. The process by which a brain for a human, or a neural network for a chatbot, generates the next word based on the previous word(s), is irrelevant in judging whether the brain or the neural network is intelligent. The fundamental problem is that we cannot define intelligence. We cannot, as humans, define what we mean when we say we understand something. We cannot tell what process takes place in our brains when we claim we understand addition or subtraction or some other mathematical or logical process.

It seems to me then that if in the future, a chatbot eventually does do mathematics in practice and is always correct, then it is irrelevant if its neural network got there by calculating probabilities of occurrence of the next most likely word or did it in some other way. If it does mathematics then our assessment of its understanding mathematics becomes moot. If it does generate useful and correct code then its understanding of the objectives is irrelevant. Moreover, we cannot say it does not understand when we cannot determine what understanding means for us, let alone for it. We cannot either impose on an AI chatbot a definition of its understanding when we cannot define it for ourselves.

Perhaps understanding is nothing more than weightage numbers in a network of neurons whether in a human brain or in an AI’s neural network software.

Tags:, ,
Posted in AI, Language | Comments Off on Just auto-complete or the beginnings of intelligence when chatGPT says ” two plus two is four”

Now Google/Bard comes to the party

July 14, 2023

I have been- sporadically – trying out ChatGPT and BingChat.  Now Google/Bard is available in Europe and I started playing with it yesterday.

Of course language models are concerned only with “the most probable text to follow” where truth or correctness has no value  – and cannot actually be given any value. My current concern is about the ownership of the product of language model based chat-bots. For example, the following questions come to mind

  1. Text is generated following a “prompt”. Is the “prompt” an act of creation/invention?
  2. Who owns the copyright to the text generated?
  3. Who is the beneficial owner of the product (the generated text)?
  4. Who is accountable/liable for any consequences of generating the text?

To begin with I put the question to Bard:

ktwop:  Who owns or is accountable for or liable for text generated by a “text-based AI”?

Bard: The ownership and liability of text generated by a text-based AI is a complex legal issue that is still being debated. There is no clear consensus on who owns the copyright for AI-generated text, and the liability for any harm caused by such text is also uncertain.

In the United States, copyright law generally requires that a work be created by a human being in order to be protected. However, there is some debate about whether this requirement applies to AI-generated text. Some experts argue that AI-generated text can be considered “created by a human being” if the AI was trained on a dataset of human-created text. Others argue that AI-generated text is not “created by a human being” and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

The liability for harm caused by AI-generated text is also uncertain. In some cases, the person or entity that created the AI may be liable for any harm caused by the text. In other cases, the person or entity that used the AI may be liable. It is also possible that both the creator and the user of the AI could be liable.

The legal issues surrounding AI-generated text are complex and evolving. It is important to consult with an attorney if you have any questions about the ownership or liability of AI-generated text.

Here are some additional factors that may be considered when determining the ownership and liability of AI-generated text:

  • The extent to which human input was involved in the creation of the text.
  • The purpose for which the text was created.
  • The intended audience for the text.
  • The potential harm that could be caused by the text.

Ultimately, the ownership and liability of AI-generated text will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

Tags:,
Posted in AI, Language | Comments Off on Now Google/Bard comes to the party

What is Bing Search and who is Sydney?

June 3, 2023

I am not yet quite clear as to the identities of ChatGPT, Bing Search, Bing Chat and Sydney? I need unique identifiers to have a conversation. Without identity there can be no accountability or liability.

I suspect that the identities of AIs, Chatbots and the like are going to need rigorous definition. While the AI / Chatbot is a long way from gaining personhood, the question of its identity and uniqueness and ownership of its product(s) will have to be resolved first. (And of course that implies liability and accountability for the products and is going to be quite contentious. Especially when the products are known to make mistakes and to be wrong). 

 

Sydney: According to an article on The Atlantic, chatbots can have unique identities. However, the article also mentions that “unique” is a relative term and that it is difficult to define what makes an AI or chatbot unique. The article also states that some chatbots are designed to be more unique than others. For example, ChatGPT is a generative AI chatbot that can create unique responses to questions and has been trained on a large dataset of text.  Another article suggests that voice biometrics can be used to generate a unique identifier for chatbots.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in AI | Comments Off on What is Bing Search and who is Sydney?

Chatbots and responsibility

May 28, 2023

(Updated re copyright)

This is getting interesting.

Large language models (such as GPT3 and 4) generate text based on probability of what text should follow. They have no internal conception of truth. The probabilities which determine text generation are reflections of conformity and are based on weights of existing usage patterns contained within its database.

The key questions which arise are:

  1. Who “owns” copyright to the generated text?
  2. Is the language model merely a tool?
  3. Is the “user” of the tool responsible for the product or does the owner of the model share responsibility for the product (the generated text)?

The product of the use of a hammer or a screwdriver requires skill (or lack of skill) from the user. The user’s “skill” in the case of a large language model is confined to that used in posing the questions to the chatbot. The user’s skill in posing questions has little impact on the text generated.

BBC

ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research

A New York lawyer is facing a court hearing of his own after his firm used AI tool ChatGPT for legal research. A judge said the court was faced with an “unprecedented circumstance” after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist. The lawyer who used the tool told the court he was “unaware that its content could be false”. ChatGPT creates original text on request, but comes with warnings it can “produce inaccurate information”.

The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward. But the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief. “Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” Judge Castel wrote in an order demanding the man’s legal team explain itself. Over the course of several filings, it emerged that the research had not been prepared by Peter LoDuca, the lawyer for the plaintiff, but by a colleague of his at the same law firm. Steven A Schwartz, who has been an attorney for more than 30 years, used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases. In his written statement, Mr Schwartz clarified that Mr LoDuca had not been part of the research and had no knowledge of how it had been carried out. Mr Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was “unaware that its content could be false”. He has vowed to never use AI to “supplement” his legal research in future “without absolute verification of its authenticity”. Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT. “Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find. ChatGPT responds that yes, it is – prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”. After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. It says that the other cases it has provided to Mr Schwartz are also real.

Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing. Millions of people have used ChatGPT since it launched in November 2022. It can answer questions in natural, human-like language and it can also mimic other writing styles. It uses the internet as it was in 2021 as its database. There have been concerns over the potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI), including the potential spread of misinformation and bias.

The ChatGPT response regarding copyright is a little too weaselly for my liking:

ktwop: Who owns the copyright to text generated by ChatGPT?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have legal ownership or rights. The text generated by ChatGPT is based on a combination of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. The ownership of the copyright for the individual responses or outputs generated by ChatGPT would typically depend on the specific context and how the model is being used.

In most cases, the copyright for the content generated by an AI language model would likely belong to the person or organization that owns the AI system or has the legal rights to its output. For example, if a company develops and operates ChatGPT, they would generally hold the copyright to the content generated by the model.

It’s important to note that while AI models like ChatGPT can assist in generating text, the responsibility for adhering to copyright laws and ensuring proper usage of generated content lies with the user or organization utilizing the model.

My gut feeling is that the creator/owner of the large language model must carry some responsibility (legal liability) similar to a product liability.

Cornell University. Product liability is a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a cause of action if they encounter a defective consumer item. This doctrine can fall under negligence, but it is generally associated with strict liability, meaning that defendants can be held liable regardless of their intent or knowledge.

Tags:, ,
Posted in AI, Language, Law | Comments Off on Chatbots and responsibility

Nothingness is not possible in a human universe

May 27, 2023

I could add quite a lot of words to this and I am not entirely happy with the “consensus” logic applied, but I would not strongly repudiate anything that was generated.

Blogging could be becoming obsolete or, I would argue, writing – including blogging – has gained a new tool.

ktwop: Discuss – Nothingness can never be real in a universe with humans.

ChatGPT: The concept of nothingness is often abstract and philosophical, and its interpretation can vary depending on the context in which it is discussed. In the context of a universe with humans, it can be argued that true “nothingness” may not exist or be experienced by humans due to our innate perception and understanding of reality.

From a philosophical standpoint, nothingness is often understood as the absence of something or the lack of existence. However, it is challenging to truly grasp or conceptualize nothingness since our perception is fundamentally rooted in the existence of things. Our sensory experiences and cognitive processes are constantly engaged with the world around us, making it difficult to imagine a state of absolute non-existence or nothingness.

In a universe with humans, even when we perceive emptiness or voids, they are still defined in relation to the existence of objects or entities. For example, an empty room is still considered empty because we can contrast it with rooms that are occupied or filled with objects. Our understanding of nothingness is thus dependent on the presence of something and our ability to differentiate between existence and non-existence.

Moreover, from a scientific perspective, the laws of physics dictate that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but they can be transformed or rearranged. This principle, known as the conservation of energy, suggests that there is always something rather than absolute nothingness. Even in seemingly empty spaces, there are still particles and energy fluctuations at the quantum level.

From a psychological standpoint, humans also tend to assign meaning and significance to the concept of nothingness. We often associate it with emptiness, absence, or non-existence, which can be unsettling or challenging for our minds to comprehend. The existential nature of human consciousness leads us to ponder the nature of reality and our place within it, but it is difficult for us to conceive a reality devoid of existence or experience.

In conclusion, while the concept of nothingness can be contemplated and discussed philosophically, it is challenging to argue that true nothingness can exist in a universe with humans. Our perception, understanding, and experience of reality are inherently rooted in the existence of things, and even seemingly empty spaces are not devoid of particles and energy. The human mind and our cognitive processes make it difficult to truly fathom or experience nothingness in its absolute sense.

The key to the proper use of chatbots as writing tools would be if a human

  1. could legitimately claim ownership of what was generated, and
  2. took ownership of what was generated.

I can claim ownership of the question I posed to ChatGPT but I am not sure I can claim ownership of what is generated – even if under my Username.

Tags:,
Posted in AI, Language, Literature, Writing | Comments Off on Nothingness is not possible in a human universe

Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth

May 3, 2023
  1. Large language models (such as GPT3) generate text based on probability.
  2. They can have no internal concept of truth.
  3. Probabilities are reflections of conformity and are based on weights of existing usage patterns contained within its database.
  4. Training is about giving additional weight as human feedback on the positivity or negativity of what has been generated.
  5. Generated text gives high values to conformity with its own database and with the training (feedback) received. 
  6. High conformance is conflated with truth.

Of course, this is a common feature in human interactions as well. Many people having a particular opinion gives that opinion a higher perceived truth value even if that opinion is utterly wrong or false. The deification of “the many” has warped our notions of what is truth.

But the fuzziness around truth could be a particular issue with large language models and for AI. Truth is not an inherent, internal concept of such models. Truth becomes relative (to the views of the trainers) and conformity is conflated with truth.

ktwop: Do large language models generate probabilistic text?
ChatGPT: That’s correct! Large language models generate text using probability distributions. These models are trained on massive amounts of text data and learn to predict the likelihood of certain words or phrases based on the context of the surrounding text.
When generating text, the model samples from these probability distributions to determine which word or phrase to use next. Because the model is probabilistic, it can generate different outputs for the same input, making the generated text more diverse and interesting.
However, it’s important to note that while large language models like GPT-3 are very good at generating coherent text, they are not perfect and can still produce errors or nonsensical output. It’s also important to be aware of ethical concerns surrounding the use of such models for potentially harmful purposes such as generating fake news or propaganda.
ktwop: How can the output from a language model be given a truth value?
ChatGPT:The output from a language model can be given a truth value by comparing it to a reference or ground truth text. The reference text can be a sentence or a paragraph that is known to be true or false, depending on the task at hand. For example, if the task is to generate a factually correct sentence, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a reliable source of information, such as a verified news article or a trustworthy database. If the output matches the reference text, it can be considered true, and if it does not, it can be considered false.
Similarly, for tasks such as sentiment analysis or topic classification, the truth value can be determined by comparing the output to a set of labels that are already defined as true or false. For example, if the task is to classify a text as positive or negative, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a labeled dataset where each text is already classified as positive or negative.
In summary, the truth value of the output from a language model can be determined by comparing it to a reference text or a set of labeled data that is already known to be true or false.
 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in AI, Evolution, Language | Comments Off on Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth