There are lots of articles about bad use cases of ChatGPT that Google already provided for decades.

Want to get bad medical advice for the weird pain in your belly? Google can tell you it’s cancer, no problem.

Do you want to know how to make drugs without a lab? Google even gives you links to stores where you can buy the materials for it.

Want some racism/misogyny/other evil content? Google is your ever helpful friend and garbage dump.

What’s the difference apart from ChatGPT’s inability to link to existing sources?

  • itsgallus@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I was gonna reply to this in the style of ChatGPT, but I somehow feel like that’d be the same as joking about having a bomb at airport security. But yeah, this is my main concern as well. Not only social media, but even blogs and reputable-looking websites which can act as “sources”. And what about Wikipedia bots?

    I’m not worried about the loss of jobs or the sentience of computers, but rather the incapability to discern what’s real and what’s not. Could online human certificates be a thing? Multi-factor authentication (that is somehow still anonymous)?

    • that_one_guy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a hard time imagining a system that can simultaneously identify someone as uniquely human while still maintaining anonymity. Any given website or person online might not know your name, but you would have to have some sort of public key that would identify you. That key would be a fingerprint that could tie all your online activity together for anyone interested.

      • itsgallus@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if the key is stored locally, and only the “I am a human” certificate was shared with the website? Kind of like Face ID and touch fingerprints.