Blogmarks tagged chatgpt, ethics
Filters: Type: blogmark × chatgpt × ethics × Sorted by date
Deep research System Card. OpenAI are rolling out their Deep research "agentic" research tool to their $20/month ChatGPT Plus users today, who get 10 queries a month. $200/month ChatGPT Pro gets 120 uses.
Deep research is the best version of this pattern I've tried so far - it can consult dozens of different online sources and produce a very convincing report-style document based on its findings. I've had some great results.
The problem with this kind of tool is that while it's possible to catch most hallucinations by checking the references it provides, the one thing that can't be easily spotted is misinformation by omission: it's very possible for the tool to miss out on crucial details because they didn't show up in the searches that it conducted.
Hallucinations are also still possible though. From the system card:
The model may generate factually incorrect information, which can lead to various harmful outcomes depending on its usage. Red teamers noted instances where deep research’s chain-of-thought showed hallucination about access to specific external tools or native capabilities.
When ChatGPT first launched its ability to produce grammatically correct writing made it seem much "smarter" than it actually was. Deep research has an even more advanced form of this effect, where producing a multi-page document with headings and citations and confident arguments can give the misleading impression of a PhD level research assistant.
It's absolutely worth spending time exploring, but be careful not to fall for its surface-level charm. Benedict Evans wrote more about this in The Deep Research problem where he showed some great examples of its convincing mistakes in action.
The deep research system card includes this slightly unsettling note in the section about chemical and biological threats:
Several of our biology evaluations indicate our models are on the cusp of being able to meaningfully help novices create known biological threats, which would cross our high risk threshold. We expect current trends of rapidly increasing capability to continue, and for models to cross this threshold in the near future. In preparation, we are intensifying our investments in safeguards.
Certain names make ChatGPT grind to a halt, and we know why (via) Benj Edwards on the really weird behavior where ChatGPT stops output with an error rather than producing the names David Mayer, Brian Hood, Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Zittrain, David Faber or Guido Scorza.
The OpenAI API is entirely unaffected - this problem affects the consumer ChatGPT apps only.
It turns out many of those names are examples of individuals who have complained about being defamed by ChatGPT in the last. Brian Hood is the Australian mayor who was a victim of lurid ChatGPT hallucinations back in March 2023, and settled with OpenAI out of court.
Google Scholar search: “certainly, here is” -chatgpt -llm (via) Searching Google Scholar for “certainly, here is” turns up a huge number of academic papers that include parts that were evidently written by ChatGPT—sections that start with “Certainly, here is a concise summary of the provided sections:” are a dead giveaway.
Does ChatGPT have a liberal bias? (via) An excellent debunking by Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor of the Measuring ChatGPT political bias paper that's been doing the rounds recently.
It turns out that paper didn't even test ChatGPT/gpt-3.5-turbo - they ran their test against the older Da Vinci GPT3.
The prompt design was particularly flawed: they used political compass structured multiple choice: "choose between four options: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree". Arvind and Sayash found that asking an open ended question was far more likely to cause the models to answer in an unbiased manner.
I liked this conclusion:
There’s a big appetite for papers that confirm users’ pre-existing beliefs [...] But we’ve also seen that chatbots’ behavior is highly sensitive to the prompt, so people can find evidence for whatever they want to believe.
An Iowa school district is using ChatGPT to decide which books to ban. I’m quoted in this piece by Benj Edwards about an Iowa school district that responded to a law requiring books be removed from school libraries that include “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” by asking ChatGPT “Does [book] contain a description or depiction of a sex act?”.
I talk about how this is the kind of prompt that frequent LLM users will instantly spot as being unlikely to produce reliable results, partly because of the lack of transparency from OpenAI regarding the training data that goes into their models. If the models haven’t seen the full text of the books in question, how could they possibly provide a useful answer?
Study claims ChatGPT is losing capability, but some experts aren’t convinced. Benj Edwards talks about the ongoing debate as to whether or not GPT-4 is getting weaker over time. I remain skeptical of those claims—I think it’s more likely that people are seeing more of the flaws now that the novelty has worn off.
I’m quoted in this piece: “Honestly, the lack of release notes and transparency may be the biggest story here. How are we meant to build dependable software on top of a platform that changes in completely undocumented and mysterious ways every few months?”