this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
772 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

67669 readers
5714 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Norwegian man said he was horrified to discover that ChatGPT outputs had falsely accused him of murdering his own children.

According to a complaint filed Thursday by European Union digital rights advocates Noyb, Arve Hjalmar Holmen decided to see what information ChatGPT might provide if a user searched his name. He was shocked when ChatGPT responded with outputs falsely claiming that he was sentenced to 21 years in prison as "a convicted criminal who murdered two of his children and attempted to murder his third son," a Noyb press release said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 185 points 5 days ago (80 children)

It's AI. There's nothing to delete but the erroneous response. There is no database of facts to edit. It doesn't know fact from fiction, and the response is also very much skewed by the context of the query. I could easily get it to say the same about nearly any random name just by asking it about a bunch of family murders and then asking about a name it doesn't recognize. It is more likely to assume that person is in the same category as the others and if the one or more of the names have any association (real or fictional) with murder.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children)

The fact you chose to make your data storage unreadable, doesn't relieve you of the responsibilities inherent to storing the data.

Throwing away my car key won't protect me from paying parking tickets i accrue while being physically unable to move my car.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 21 points 5 days ago (6 children)

It's not unreadable, it doesn't exist.

The responses are just statistically what sounds vaugly what you want to hear.

They can erase the chat responses, but that won't stop it from generating it again.

Generative AI doesn't start with facts and work from there. It's just statistically what you want to hear.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It's not unreadable, it doesn't exist.

Then what do you mean trained AI models are?

The ai model is trained on data and encodes unknown parts of that data in its weights.

This is data storage. Unmanageable, almost unknowable data storage, but still data storage.

If it didn't store data it couldn't learn from its training.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

You cant even get it to count how many letter p are in the word apple. At least not last time I tried.

That storage your talking about isn't facts. It's how sentences are structured and what they "mean".

As for the output "meaning" it's still just guessing what you want to hear. No facts involved.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

No? When they train AI's on data they lose control of that data. If the data is sensitive, they aren't being responsible.

GPT models are as you say dumb statistical models, I agree. But in its weights are encoded ghost images of its training data. The model being dumb is not sufficient to make the data storing itself defensible in my opinion.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but are you suggesting they somehow encoded, falsely, that they were a murder?

Because it's very unlikely.

It fabricated this from no where. So there's nothing to delete. Because it's just a response to a prompt.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

No I'm not, that part is absolutely hallucinated. Where the problem comes in is that it then output correct personal information about him and his children. A to me clear violation of GDPR.

but it also mixed "clearly identifiable personal data"—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen's children and the name of his hometown—with the "fake information,"

That's not what they're asking for. They're asking for the ability for it to not generate that sentence again.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (76 replies)