Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.0K

It's funny how they call being "wrong" or "lying" a hallucination. Just call it what it is. It isn't really "thinking" and so that is basically just a error/lie.

Archive: https://archive.today/x6Wkn

From the post:

>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.

It's funny how they call being "wrong" or "lying" a hallucination. Just call it what it is. It isn't really "thinking" and so that is basically just a error/lie. Archive: https://archive.today/x6Wkn From the post: >>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.
[–] • 1 pt 24d

Bryan Lunduke(rumble.com) and others already went through this. ChatGPT was producing text about them that amounted to defamation. They threatened OpenAI with a defamation suit. The OpenAI team did some old fashioned programming and added some traditional AI that blocks ChatGPT from making any response containing those peoples’ names. Lunduke says it ends the chat session when you prompt it to respond with his name.

In other words, since their “AI” is not actually intelligent they cannot teach it concrete rules like “Don’t say anything about this person for legal reasons”. Instead, they have to have its “unintelligent” controlling software cut it off.

[–] • 1 pt 24d

The founding fathers never saw this one coming

[–] • 1 pt 24d

Well there you have it. Pretty sure (((anyone))) with enough money will be able to delete and curate AI info on their life.