It certainly wasn’t because the company is owned by a far-right South African billionaire at the same moment that the Trump admin is entertaining a plan to grant refugee status to white Afrikaners. /s

My partner is a real refugee. She was jailed for advocating democracy in her home country. She would have received a lengthy prison sentence after trial had she not escaped. This crap is bullshit. Btw, did you hear about the white-genocide happening in the USA? Sorry, I must have used Grok to write this. Go Elon! Cybertrucks are cool! Twitter isn’t a racist hellscape!

The stuff at the end was sarcasm, you dolt. Shut up.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Sure, but unintentionally. I heard about a guy whose small business (which is just him) recently had someone call in, furious because ChatGPT told them that he was having a sale that she couldn’t find. The customer didn’t believe him when he said that the promotion didn’t exist. Once someone decides to leverage that, and make a sufficiently-popular AI model start giving bad information on purpose, things will escalate.

      Even now, I think Elon could put a small company out of business if he wanted to, just by making Grok claim that its owner was a pedophile or something.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        “Unintentionally” is the wrong word, because it attributes the intent to the model rather than the people who designed it.

        Hallucinations are not an accidental side effect, they are the inevitable result of building a multidimensional map of human language use. People hallucinate, lie, dissemble, write fiction, misrepresent reality, etc. Obviously a system that is designed to map out a human-sounding path from a given system prompt to a particular query is going to take those same shortcuts that people used in its training data.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Unintentionally is the right word because the people who designed it did not intend for it to be bad information. They chose an approach that resulted in bad information because of the data they chose to train and the steps that they took throughout the process.

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Incorrect. The people who designed it did not set out with a goal of producing a bot that reguritates true information. If that’s what they wanted they’d never have used a neural network architecture in the first place.