Can GPT be Reliable?

[mike]

I don't think that is a fair description of what I am advocating. I am in favor of letting people and platforms choose, but I would like to enable them to make informed choices.

Requiring platforms to make certain tools available for users doesn't quite sound like the same thing as "letting people and platforms choose." It sounds like something coercive.

[ken_sylvania]

Again, the government should not decide what the truth is, but requiring platforms to give access to tools like that seems reasonable to me.

In other words, forcing companies to police content. It seems like a real mess once you start down that road. A lot of information is passed around in other ways than social media platforms. Should companies who provide private messaging apps have to do the same? Can it even be done with encrypted messaging? What about phone companies who provide SMS services which can be used to transmit fake content. What about news media organizations who deliver biased or deliberately false content? How much money can a company be expected to expend on these sorts of tools? Who will set the standards? What if the tools don't work correctly? Who is liable? These and many more questions would need to be asked.

I don't think this forces companies to police content. I think it simply forces them to make it less difficult for communities to identify falsehood on their platforms. It will always be harder than creating false content, but it could be made a lot easier than it is. Currently, only very sophisticated people can do this.

Similarly, if people prefer a platform that predictably serves up things tailored to their biases and the emotional states they prefer to be in, nobody is stopping them. If people can measure what it does, and it's the opposite of what they advertise, I don't know if false advertising laws would come into play or not. If so, would that be bad?

I think that companies should be allowed to create tools and standards if they so choose, but should not be forced to or pressured by the government. Then people can utilize platforms and services that they like.

With no way of knowing if the platform is intentionally promoting false content over true content or how they are being manipulated.

Creating these APIs and access the tools is cheap and easy for the platforms. They have these tools internally and they use them. The public would probably be upset to know how the sausage is made, but that's the point. People should have the information we need to choose. Communities on a platform should have the tools we need to identify falsehood together where these things are spread. As is, we have the tools to amplify memes and falsehoods, but not to easily identify them.

I agree with Robert. If a company doesn't let you create photos using well known political figures, presumably because you may create fake images that will deceive people, but at the same time generates pictures of the founding fathers being African American, that's kinda ridiculous, don't you think?

I would be in favor of platforms that let me create these things, but provide tools that make it really easy for people to know how they were created. Platforms that provide tools to allow us to discern what is true.

As it is, we have no way of knowing if Bootstrap is intentionally promoting false content over true content, or how he is manipulating us.
Nor do we have any way of knowing that about any of the major news websites, or for that matter even about whitehouse.gov.

I think it is quite naive to think that companies can #1 cheaply, #2 easily, build tools that will #3 "make it really easy for people" to know how content is created/curated without #4 in the process creating an opportunity for people to learn how to game the algorithms and make their misinformation game less easily detected.

At some point, the question becomes "Do we really need, or even want, a world where every last detail of everything including your bathroom schedule has to be subject to government regulation and publicly available. I get the impression that you think the world is made better when you have the ability to look into every closet and every drawer - and that the more regulation the merrier. I get the impression that you think government can generally be trusted to do the right thing. My experience and observation is that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing; that government will lie, cheat, twist the facts, hide the evidence, whatever they think they can get away with to get the results they want. I think that there is no practical difference between Meta or X post their algorithms, and making the NYT publicly disclose their internal deliberations on how and whether to report on the news.

[Robert]

I don't think that is a fair description of what I am advocating. I am in favor of letting people and platforms choose, but I would like to enable them to make informed choices.

Requiring platforms to make certain tools available for users doesn't quite sound like the same thing as "letting people and platforms choose." It sounds like something coercive.

Any of these coersive?

[Robert]

Wait, where did I get all that hair?

[Bootstrap]

Could this thread stay on topic? Do we need another thread for all the cool images people can create? I don't think they tell us if GPT can be used reliably, they do tell us that GPT can be used to create false content.

[Robert]

I don't think they tell us if GPT can be used reliably, they do tell us that GPT can be used to create false content.

That is the exact point. I guess you missed it.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think they tell us if GPT can be used reliably, they do tell us that GPT can be used to create false content.

That is the exact point. I guess you missed it.

People can create false content. They can also create reliable content. I can't think of any tool that can't be used to mess things up if misused.

Can wrenches be reliable? Can hammers? Can calculators? It depends a lot on how you use them.

So do I trust social media platforms more if they actively encourage abuse? Or do I hope for social media platforms that do not?

[Robert]

So do I trust social media platforms more if they actively encourage abuse? Or do I hope for social media platforms that do not?

Who defines abuse of social media?

The reality is even if we just try to search for facts, that may not give us a full or complete picture. For me, the only thing all this does is remind me not to be absolute in my thinking. I could be wrong and that is okay. We all should grow from experience and times we fail or get it wrong. Thinking we know more than others is actually putting us in the center when we guided not to do that.

We will not find absolute truth in this world. I feel searching for it is a bit delusional. We can search for knowledge and wisdom, but always remember that nothing is perfect in this world. Striving for better is good. Striving for perfection is a fool's errand.

[JohnL]

Who defines abuse of social media?

The reality is even if we just try to search for facts, that may not give us a full or complete picture. For me, the only thing all this does is remind me not to be absolute in my thinking. I could be wrong and that is okay. We all should grow from experience and times we fail or get it wrong. Thinking we know more than others is actually putting us in the center when we guided not to do that.

We will not find absolute truth in this world. I feel searching for it is a bit delusional. We can search for knowledge and wisdom, but always remember that nothing is perfect in this world. Striving for better is good. Striving for perfection is a fool's errand.

This is a really worthy piece of writing I’m going to keep in my Bible.

[Bootstrap]

So do I trust social media platforms more if they actively encourage abuse? Or do I hope for social media platforms that do not?

Who defines abuse of social media?

There will be many definitions, and I am asking for people to be able to have the data they need to know if social media is being abused according to their values. For instance, medical associations or scientific associations could provide metrics on whether scientific sources are demoted in favor of sensationalist approaches that are not based on science. Political parties could provide metrics on whether party affiliation affects what is promoted. People interested in teen mental health could provide metrics on what is promoted to teens. Newspapers and news sources could do their own investigations, as many have done. The government should not make these decisions for people.

Musk is shouting "transparency" at the top of his voice every day now. I'm asking for transparency.

I'll respond to the rest of this in a different thread because it is not really tech talk.