Safety experts quit OpenAI

[Silvanus]

I'm aware of that... Something given to me that I do need to look at, I know more about it than a legal briefing. Hence, you need greater deception to fool someone on something they are expected to know about. It's like saying AI can fool a layperson by making up a patient's chart when a doctor wouldn't be fooled by it; the layperson would never be asked to look at a patient chart.

Riiiiight... which means you need less sophisticated deception to fool a layperson. AI hasn't just demonstrated an ability that fails to convince lawyers and also wouldn't convince laypeople. Its demonstrated an ability that would easily convince laypeople in other contexts: the fabrication of details and stats.

Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent; disinformation is distinct in that it is deliberately deceptive and propagated. Misinformation can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths.

If you see political bias as equivalent to fabrication and falsehood, then we have nothing to discuss, because you're too far down the rabbit hole into pure misinfo apologism. If you want to continue to discuss the actual topic of falsehood in generated content, let me know.

Flat earthers already have fucking conventions without AI. What is this AI going to encourage them to do beyond that?

Misinfo encouraged idiots to forego the vaccine and endanger thousands. Misinfo encouraged idiots to vote against their own interests in dozens of elections. You may not see this as a problem, but that's because if something doesn't impact you personally, you're unwilling or incapable of recognising that it's a problem.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Riiiiight... which means you need less sophisticated deception to fool a layperson. AI hasn't just demonstrated an ability that fails to convince lawyers and also wouldn't convince laypeople. Its demonstrated an ability that would easily convince laypeople in other contexts: the fabrication of details and stats.



If you see political bias as equivalent to fabrication and falsehood, then we have nothing to discuss, because you're too far down the rabbit hole into pure misinfo apologism. If you want to continue to discuss the actual topic of falsehood in generated content, let me know.



Misinfo encouraged idiots to forego the vaccine and endanger thousands. Misinfo encouraged idiots to vote against their own interests in dozens of elections. You may not see this as a problem, but that's because if something doesn't impact you personally, you're unwilling or incapable of recognising that it's a problem.

But a layperson with say an employer offer letter knows how to properly read that and make sure everything is in there that needs to be in there. They will not in a court briefing. Hence, I don't understand why you think a court briefing example is something that proves your point.

Part of misinformation is omitting facts that don't agree with your agenda, that's just what it is. Telling people actual facts and purposefully omitting other facts is more deceptive than just straight-up lying. Humans are better at deceiving humans than AI.

Forgoing the vaccine didn't endanger anyone besides the person that forgone it (assuming the person didn't have natural immunity), that is just a fact. Liberals vote against their own self-interests all the time too but why are conservatives called idiots for doing the very same thing? I've always said I'm not a much a fan of democracy, but I just don't have a better solution that isn't less exploitable/corruptible.

 

[Silvanus]

But a layperson with say an employer offer letter knows how to properly read that and make sure everything is in there that needs to be in there. They will not in a court briefing. Hence, I don't understand why you think a court briefing example is something that proves your point.

Because we're talking about laypeople seeing stories where they have no specialist pre-understanding or expertise. Fucking obviously.

Part of misinformation is omitting facts that don't agree with your agenda [...]

If you're going to try to twist "falsehood" to include standard political bias without factual inaccuracy, we have nothing to discuss. I'll be happy to discuss the actual topic if you want to return to it.

Forgoing the vaccine didn't endanger anyone [...]

This is of course a problem when discussing misinformation with you: you have personally fallen for a lot of it, and are therefore personally invested in insisting that its accurate.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because we're talking about laypeople seeing stories where they have no specialist pre-understanding or expertise. Fucking obviously.



If you're going to try to twist "falsehood" to include standard political bias without factual inaccuracy, we have nothing to discuss. I'll be happy to discuss the actual topic if you want to return to it.



This is of course a problem when discussing misinformation with you: you have personally fallen for a lot of it, and are therefore personally invested in insisting that its accurate.

The fact that people already require decent amount of misinformation/disinformation in news stories proves my point. AI can't purposefully do something humans can do rather simply.

Nothing to do with political bias, talking about misinformation and that is a huge component of it.

Find me any actual science that says covid vaccines stop transmission.

 

[Silvanus]

The fact that people already require decent amount of misinformation/disinformation in news stories proves my point.

What on earth does this mean? People don't "require" decent amounts of misinformation/disinformation. Significant numbers of people are convinced merely by soundbites or headline stats.

Nothing to do with political bias, talking about misinformation and that is a huge component of it.

We're talking about falsehood. Not political bias. I'm gonna just ignore any further efforts to shift the conversation onto standard political bias, which is not our topic and isn't the same thing.

Find me any actual science that says covid vaccines stop transmission.

Why? You wouldn't believe them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What on earth does this mean? People don't "require" decent amounts of misinformation/disinformation. Significant numbers of people are convinced merely by soundbites or headline stats.



We're talking about falsehood. Not political bias. I'm gonna just ignore any further efforts to shift the conversation onto standard political bias, which is not our topic and isn't the same thing.



Why? You wouldn't believe them.

News stories / narratives almost always get around / become basically viral because of something that is true / speaks to something people notice going on.

What is with you? Not everything is political. Same kinda of misinformation by omission happens in like the MJ vs Lebron GOAT debate or literally any debates. If you don't convey all relevant info on a topic, the person will be misinformed.

There is no science that exists that shows vaccinations slow the spread in any significant manner. Observing the world around you simply tells you the vaccines didn't slow transmissions, look at the US or Israel post vaccination infection numbers, or the Provincetown Massachusetts outbreak that's a perfect microcosm example. Vaccinated and unvaccinated have the same viral loads when infected and spread basically as easily so it doesn't matter.

 

[Silvanus]

News stories / narratives almost always get around / become basically viral because of something that is true / speaks to something people notice going on.

What utter nonsense. Complete falsehoods gain traction and influence votes/ behaviour all the time.

There is no science [...]

Further demonstration of why you can't be considered credible on the subject of misinformation, and why you overlook how convincing it can be.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What utter nonsense. Complete falsehoods gain traction and influence votes/ behaviour all the time.



Further demonstration of why you can't be considered credible on the subject of misinformation, and why you overlook how convincing it can be.

Like what?

There is literally no science that says vaccines slow the transmission of covid. Provide actual science that says that. I'm the one falling for misinformation... sure thing...

 

[Silvanus]

Like what?

Like:

There is literally no science that says vaccines slow the transmission of covid.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Like:

It's on you to prove your science claim... funny how you can't "show your work" but claim to be right.

 

[Silvanus]

It's on you to prove your science claim... funny how you can't "show your work" but claim to be right.

There is no possible way of proving something to your satisfaction, Phoenix, because as soon as something disagrees with you, you discount it.

Your gullibility with regards misinformation is clear from the way you'll endlessly post insubstantial YouTube talking heads or disreputable speakers and sources and demand everyone else take time out of their days to address them. You're in deep.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There is no possible way of proving something to your satisfaction, Phoenix, because as soon as something disagrees with you, you discount it.

Your gullibility with regards misinformation is clear from the way you'll endlessly post insubstantial YouTube talking heads or disreputable speakers and sources and demand everyone else take time out of their days to address them. You're in deep.

Nope, I was in the camp that originally thought once you got natural immunity or vaccinated, you'd never get covid again because of the data on the 1st SARS from 20 years back or so. But it was pretty apparent that wasn't the case just by infection numbers post vaccinations, the US had more cases in 21-22 (post vaccination) vs 20-21 (no vaccination/very limited vaccination). Same thing happened in other countries like Israel. Plus, there's actual studies on viral loads being the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Even the US foremost vaccine expert says it was dumb to expect infections to be eliminated by the vaccine based on the type of virus it is. To believe vaccinations actually slow covid transmissions is as bad science as thinking wearing a mask outside does anything.

 

[Silvanus]

Nope, I was in the camp that originally thought once you got natural immunity or vaccinated, you'd never get covid again because of the data on the 1st SARS from 20 years back or so. But it was pretty apparent that wasn't the case just by infection numbers post vaccinations, the US had more cases in 21-22 (post vaccination) vs 20-21 (no vaccination/very limited vaccination).

And I'm certain you changed your mind on that solely because some talking head on YouTube or lightweight scientific figure you happen to like said so.

Even the US foremost vaccine expert says it was dumb to expect infections to be eliminated by the vaccine based on the type of virus it is. To believe vaccinations actually slow covid transmissions is as bad science as thinking wearing a mask outside does anything.

Do you understand the difference between elimination and lowering?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And I'm certain you changed your mind on that solely because some talking head on YouTube or lightweight scientific figure you happen to like said so.



Do you understand the difference between elimination and lowering?

Nope, data and basic observation of the world around me.

Same viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated, and infection levels higher than pre-vaccination doesn't look like the vaccine lowered transmissions at all. And there's literally no data saying the vaccines do slow transmission so... again one of those things you just believe and act like is "scientific consensus" just because it agrees with your narrative.

 

[Silvanus]

Nope, data and basic observation of the world around me.

Same viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated, and infection levels higher than pre-vaccination doesn't look like the vaccine lowered transmissions at all. And there's literally no data saying the vaccines do slow transmission so... again one of those things you just believe and act like is "scientific consensus" just because it agrees with your narrative.

If "data and observation" have brought you to the usual spurious anti-vax bollocks, then it's "data and observation" that scientists wouldn't dignify with the term.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If "data and observation" have brought you to the usual spurious anti-vax bollocks, then it's "data and observation" that scientists wouldn't dignify with the term.

There is literally no data showing covid vaccines slowed transmissions. They very much helped reduce severe illness/hospitalizations, I don't know how that is anti-vax in your world.

 

[Gergar12]

AI is plateauing right now right now. There seem to be no radical improvements to the capability of LLMs like GPT-4o, Claude, and Llama models.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There is literally no data showing covid vaccines slowed transmissions.

How would you show such a thing with all the various lurking variables?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

How would you show such a thing with all the various lurking variables?

In science, the person making a claim has to prove their claim. The claim that covid vaccines will slow transmissions has no evidence supporting it. It's not on someone else to disprove it, it's on the claim makers to prove it. They never did a single study on it IIRC, not to mention the common sense of looking at the spread after the vaccine campaigns (like Israel or US or anywhere) and covid still spreading like wildfire means vaccines don't stop transmissions (or if they do, it's very slightly).

 

[Felesark]

Why tho?