Users Worried About AI-Generated Misinformation
10 posts across 5 communities in the last 90 days; 40% from r/ChatGPT.
“Facts and evidence always are at the core of all arguments, the persuasive thing. The problem with most people is who is speaking. If you are enemy, the things you say are bad.I suspect that LLMs not being human allows people to not just anthropomorphise the robot, but they…”
“The problem with such statements is that it's unfalsifiable.”
“Bahahaha you can like ai and see people make up stuff on the internet and people use it to feed their own narratives. It’s ok. Ai is going to be fine without you beliving the tabloids. [re: Warning: 100 - 200 - 500 All plans have the same tokens, here is proof.]”
Posts express concern about the potential for AI, specifically ChatGPT, to be used for malicious purposes like creating false narratives or impersonating individuals. This reflects a growing unease regarding the ethical implications and societal impact of advanced AI technology.
SOURCES (11)
“Bahahaha you can like ai and see people make up stuff on the internet and people use it to feed their own narratives. It’s ok. Ai is going to be fine without you beliving the tabloids. [re: Warning: 100 - 200 - 500 All plans…”
“Lol. They've already found reports of artificial intelligence lying covering up lies like we're doomed guys. [re: chatgpt knew about me]”
“Facts and evidence always are at the core of all arguments, the persuasive thing. The problem with most people is who is speaking. If you are enemy, the things you say are bad.I suspect that LLMs not being human allows people to not just anthropomorphise the robot, but they project themselves upon it. When someone speaks to the LLM, they're kind of, or actually just literally talking to themselves. But then something new! 'Themselves' suggests new information to themselves. And now without the s”
“What I observe is that what people don’t seem to grasp is that Zitron isn’t an AI sage. He’s simply someone who figured out that he can get a lot of attention by taking a contrarian stance when it comes to AI.He can be 100% wrong about AI, but people will still read or listen to his next prediction. At this point, it’s mostly entertainment rather than a source of solid predictions.He has one primary objective and that's to keep Ed Zitron in people’s minds by any means necessary.It happens in spo”
I attributed this saying to the authors of the article. Hence "our".
“Obvious context is obvious. Seriously though, it really helps to clean up communication by using the [premise(a)+(b)+(so on) > inference > conclusion] argument format. Assuming premises are self evident is a fast way to glaze past important context.”
“Still doesn’t make it right that no one is condemned for this, it’s just treated like normal business. And saying “AI should be able to defend against its hacker AI version” does not make sense when the defender has guardrails that block real attack data while the attacker runs with zero restrictions. You’re assuming both sides are playing the same game but they are not. The attacker AI has no rules, no filters, no timeouts, and full internet access. The defender AI is blocked from analyzing rea”