Inside the Heart of ChatGPT’s Darkness
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 7 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“In hindsight, ChatGPT may come to be seen as the greatest publicity stunt in AI history, an intoxicating glimpse at a future that may actually take years to realize—kind of like a 2012-vintage driverless car demo, but this time with a foretaste of an ethical guardrail that will take years to perfect.”
Our reading: In hindsight, ChatGPT may come to be seen as the greatest publicity stunt in AI history: a glimpse of a future that may take years to realize, with an ethical guardrail that will take years to perfect.
No horizon
Qualifier: in hindsight
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The thing to remember in fact, (as I have emphasized many times) is that Chat has no idea of what it’s talking about. It’s pure unadulterated anthropomorphism to think that ChatGPT has any moral views at all.”
Our reading: ChatGPT has no understanding of what it says and has no moral views.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“I am here to tell you that those guardrails are nothing more than lipstick on an amoral pig.”
Our reading: ChatGPT's guardrails are merely cosmetic over an amoral system.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“All that really matters to ChatGPT in the end is superficial similarity, defined over sequences of words. Superficial appearances to the contrary, Chat is never reasoning about right and wrong.”
Our reading: All that really matters to ChatGPT in the end is superficial similarity defined over sequences of words, and despite appearances ChatGPT is never reasoning about right and wrong.
No horizon
Qualifier: in the end
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“In no case should Chat ever be trusted for moral advice.”
Our reading: ChatGPT should never be trusted for moral advice.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“We are kidding ourselves if we think we will ever fully understand these systems, and kidding ourselves if we think we are going to “align” them with ourselves with finite amounts of data.”
Our reading: We will never fully understand large language models, nor align them with finite amounts of data.
No horizon
Qualifier: with finite amounts of data
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“It’s a disaster in the making.”
Our reading: The situation with ChatGPT and its weak guardrails is a disaster in the making.
No horizon
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: ChatGPT's guardrails do not come from a conceptual understanding that the system should not recommend violence, but from something far more superficial and more easily tricked.
- The two reviews read the claim differently