Skip to content
linux-nerds.org

linux-nerds.org
  1. Übersicht
  2. Technology
  3. Leading AI Models Are Completely Flunking the Three Laws of Robotics

Leading AI Models Are Completely Flunking the Three Laws of Robotics

Technology
18 16 0
Anmelden zum Antworten

  • D

    Grok 4 has been so badly neutered that it's now programmed to see what Elon says about the topic at hand and blindly parrot that line.

    Technology technology
    67
    2
    738 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    176 Aufrufe
    K
    That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.
  • P

    Operation Overload: An AI fuelled escalation of the Kremlin-linked propaganda effort

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    67 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • P

    Uber’s algorithmic pricing leaves drivers and passengers worse off

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    212 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    erev@lemmy.worldE
    meanwhile i set a wait and save so i have time to finish getting ready and uber tells me it's already arrived.
  • P

    An AI video ad is making a splash. Is it the future of advertising?

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    apfelwoischoppen@lemmy.worldA
    Gobble that AI slop NPR. Reads like sponsored content.
  • tonytins@pawb.socialT

    Salesforce and Slack announce price hikes following expansion of AI integrations

    Technology technology
    16
    1
    144 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    B
    I know there decent alternatives to SalesForce, but I’m not sure what you’d replace Slack with. Teams is far worse in every conceivable way and I’m not sure if there’s anything else out there that isn’t already speeding down the enshittification highway.
  • bimbimboy@lemm.eeB

    With a Trump-driven reduction of nearly 2,000 employees, F.D.A. will Use A.I. in Drug Approvals to ‘Radically Increase Efficiency’

    Technology technology
    91
    1
    347 Stimmen
    91 Beiträge
    103 Aufrufe
    E
    It kinda seems like you don’t understand the actual technology.
  • tal@lemmy.todayT

    Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    252 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • P

    Why does digital violence against LGBTI people in Thailand and Taiwan continue even after marriage equality?

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    L
    Divide and conquer. Non state-actors and special interest have a far easier time attacking a hundred small entities than one big one. Because people have much less bandwidth to track all this shit than it is to spread it around. See ALEC and the strategy behind state rights. In the end this is about economic power. The only way to curb it is through a democratic government. Lemmy servers too can be bought and sold and the communities captured that grew on them.