> Could I sue the user? They’re the one who generated the response, but there’s no intent nor duty to fact check, if they don’t repeat the claim.
If they don't repeat the claim, then where is the libel?
> It feels very all or nothing - either creators of LLMs are intrinsically negligent with regard to facts, or there’s nothing you can do.
Nonsense. The "facts" are entirely out of their hands. Fact and fiction are written into text using identical patterns. Truth and lie are written with identical patterns. Technical definitions and complete nonsense are written with identical patterns.
LLMs are only capable of modeling patterns. They cannot be directed to choose some and avoid others.
There is fundamentally no way for LLM creators to curate the patterns that exist in the model. The only way an LLM can be altered is from the outside: by giving it different input.
GPT's creators have failed to clarify this. But why? Was it intentional, or the result of their own misunderstanding? Either way, the result is identical: it does not contain evidence of intent.
Considering the surrounding context, I believe it to be an honest mistake. GPT's authors have surrounded GPT with a narrative that personifies it; and from the looks of it, they have started to believe that narrative.
The most important thing we can learn from this experience is that the way something is said may imply certainty, but only evidence can truly provide it.
It was absolutely intentional, because "glorified autocomplete" doesn't make waves while "artificial intelligence" gets tons of traction, usage, and money.
That mistake goes deeper than their presentation, though: every effort made by OpenAI to evaluate GPT is based on the false premise of its personification.
Just take a look at the GPT-4 introduction: how do they illustrate that GPT-4 is an improvement from GPT-3? It scored better on the SAT! That data wouldn't have ever been taken into serious consideration if OpenAI actually understood its fallacious premise.
Religious narrative is very often influenced by the motivation of religious followers, but that doesn't make the path from motivation to narrative intentional.
If they don't repeat the claim, then where is the libel?
> It feels very all or nothing - either creators of LLMs are intrinsically negligent with regard to facts, or there’s nothing you can do.
Nonsense. The "facts" are entirely out of their hands. Fact and fiction are written into text using identical patterns. Truth and lie are written with identical patterns. Technical definitions and complete nonsense are written with identical patterns.
LLMs are only capable of modeling patterns. They cannot be directed to choose some and avoid others.
There is fundamentally no way for LLM creators to curate the patterns that exist in the model. The only way an LLM can be altered is from the outside: by giving it different input.
GPT's creators have failed to clarify this. But why? Was it intentional, or the result of their own misunderstanding? Either way, the result is identical: it does not contain evidence of intent.
Considering the surrounding context, I believe it to be an honest mistake. GPT's authors have surrounded GPT with a narrative that personifies it; and from the looks of it, they have started to believe that narrative.
The most important thing we can learn from this experience is that the way something is said may imply certainty, but only evidence can truly provide it.