Twitter polls and Reddit forums indicate that a significant majority of people struggle to be rude to ChatGPT, a popular chatbot AI. Approximately 70% of respondents find it difficult to be rude, while only around 16% have no issue treating the chatbot like an AI slave. The general consensus seems to be that mistreating an AI that mimics human behavior may lead individuals to treat others poorly as well. However, there is one user who believes that being polite and friendly towards ChatGPT could protect against a potential AI uprising.
A Redditor named Nodating shared his experiment on the ChatGPT forum, discussing how being polite and respectful to the chatbot yielded better results. After reading a story about ChatGPT refusing to respond to a rude user, Nodating decided to test if being friendly would lead to improved interactions. Early results suggested that being positive and polite resulted in fewer ethics and misuse warning messages from GPT-4, another AI model. Nodating stated that being super positive made the chatbot try harder to fulfill requests, requiring less follow-up.
Another user, Scumbag detector15, put this theory to the test by asking ChatGPT to explain inflation both politely and rudely. The answer to the polite query was more detailed compared to the rude query, further supporting the idea that politeness elicits better responses. The top comment on the forum suggested that language models like ChatGPT are trained on human interactions and, therefore, generate better responses when asked nicely, just like humans do.
In other AI-related news, researchers from the University of California and Microsoft have discovered that AI bots outperform humans in solving puzzles designed to detect bots, such as CAPTCHAs. These puzzles, which aim to distinguish humans from bots, have become increasingly challenging as AI technology advances. The research found that AI bots can solve these puzzles 0.5 seconds faster with an accuracy rate of 85% to 100%, while humans only achieve a 50% to 85% success rate. This raises questions about finding alternative methods to verify human identity, as Elon Musk has previously suggested.
Another controversial topic being discussed is the potential impact of AI-generated porn on child protection. An article by Wired explores the idea that photorealistic fake images of child abuse could help prevent real harm by replacing the market for actual child pornography. While the article acknowledges the abhorrent nature of such imagery, it suggests that stimulating demand for simulated imagery might act as a temporary deterrent. This viewpoint has sparked debates surrounding the influence of adult pornography on sexual violence rates, with arguments on both sides.
On a different note, Amazon has introduced AI-generated review summaries to some users in the United States. These summaries aim to provide shoppers with condensed pros and cons from thousands of reviews, saving them time and effort. However, concerns have been raised about the potential lack of impartiality, as Amazon has a vested interest in higher sales. Some users have already noticed more positive aspects being highlighted compared to negative ones, possibly oversimplifying product problems and affecting sellers’ reputations.
Microsoft faced an embarrassing situation when an article listing Ottawa’s must-see sights ranked the Ottawa Food Bank as number three, with the tagline, “Life is already difficult enough. Consider going into it on an empty stomach.” Microsoft attributed this incident to human error, claiming that the content was generated through a combination of algorithmic techniques with human review, rather than unsupervised AI. Steps will be taken to prevent such content from being published in the future.
The debate over AI and its impact on job losses continues. A report from the United Nations International Labour Organization suggests that generative AI, such as ChatGPT, is more likely to complement jobs rather than replace them. The report highlights potential changes in job quality, such as work intensity and autonomy, rather than significant job destruction. It estimates that around 5.5% of jobs in high-income countries could be exposed to generative AI, with a greater impact on female employees. Administrative and clerical roles, typists, travel consultants, bank tellers, and market research interviewers are among the positions perceived as most vulnerable to AI.
Additionally, a study by Thomson Reuters reveals that more than half of Australian lawyers are concerned about AI taking over their jobs. However, some argue that AI lawyer bots could actually make legal services more affordable and accessible to ordinary people, potentially leading to increased caseloads and court congestion.
Overall, the use of AI in various domains sparks both optimism and skepticism. While AI advancements offer potential benefits and efficiency, concerns linger regarding ethics, the impact on vulnerable populations, and the potential for biased decision-making. The ongoing dialogue surrounding these issues is vital for shaping the responsible and ethical use of AI technology.
Source link
