Human moderator? ChatGPT isn’t a social platform, I wouldn’t expect there to be any actual moderation. A human couldn’t really do anything besides shut down a user’s account. They probably wouldn’t even have access to any conversations or PII because that would be a privacy nightmare.
Also, those moderation scores can be wildly inaccurate. I think people would quickly get frustrated using it when half the stuff they write gets flagged as hate speech:.56,violence:.43,self harm:.29
Those numbers in the middle are really ambiguous in my experience.
As of a few weeks ago, a lot of ChatGpt logs got leaked via search indexing. So privacy was never really a concern for OpenAI, let’s be real.
And it doesn’t matter what they think what type of platform they run. Altman himself talks about it replacing therapy and how it can do everything. So in a reasonable world he’d have ungodly, personal liability for this shit. But let’s see were it will go.
Those conversations were shared by the users and they checked a box saying to make it discoverable by web searches. I wouldn’t call that “leaked”, and openAI immediately removed the feature after people obviously couldn’t be trusted to use it responsibly, so that kind of seems like privacy is a concern for them.
I forget the exact wording, but it was misleading. It was phrased like “make discoverable”, but the actual functionality submitted each one directly for indexing.
At least to my understanding, which is filtered through shoddy tech journalism.
It was this, and they could have explained what it was doing in better detail, but it probably would have made those people even less likely to read it.
I can’t tell if Altman is spouting marketing or really believe his own bullshit. AI is a toy and a tool, but it is not a serious product. All that shit about AI replacing everyone is not the case and in any event he wants someone else to build it in top of ChatGPT so the lability is theirs.
As for the logs I hadn’t heard that and would want to understand the provenance and whether they contained PII other than what the user shared. Whether they are kept secure or not, making them available to thousands of moderators is a privacy concern.
I’m looking forward to how AI Act will be interpreted in Europe with regards to the responsibility of OpenAI.
I could see them having such a responsibility if a court decides that their product leads to sufficient impact on people lives. Not because they don’t advertise such a usage (like virtual therapist or virtual friend) but because users are using it that way in a reasonable fashion.
Human moderator? ChatGPT isn’t a social platform, I wouldn’t expect there to be any actual moderation. A human couldn’t really do anything besides shut down a user’s account. They probably wouldn’t even have access to any conversations or PII because that would be a privacy nightmare.
Also, those moderation scores can be wildly inaccurate. I think people would quickly get frustrated using it when half the stuff they write gets flagged as
hate speech: .56, violence: .43, self harm: .29Those numbers in the middle are really ambiguous in my experience.
As of a few weeks ago, a lot of ChatGpt logs got leaked via search indexing. So privacy was never really a concern for OpenAI, let’s be real.
And it doesn’t matter what they think what type of platform they run. Altman himself talks about it replacing therapy and how it can do everything. So in a reasonable world he’d have ungodly, personal liability for this shit. But let’s see were it will go.
Those conversations were shared by the users and they checked a box saying to make it discoverable by web searches. I wouldn’t call that “leaked”, and openAI immediately removed the feature after people obviously couldn’t be trusted to use it responsibly, so that kind of seems like privacy is a concern for them.
I forget the exact wording, but it was misleading. It was phrased like “make discoverable”, but the actual functionality submitted each one directly for indexing.
At least to my understanding, which is filtered through shoddy tech journalism.
It was this, and they could have explained what it was doing in better detail, but it probably would have made those people even less likely to read it.
I can’t tell if Altman is spouting marketing or really believe his own bullshit. AI is a toy and a tool, but it is not a serious product. All that shit about AI replacing everyone is not the case and in any event he wants someone else to build it in top of ChatGPT so the lability is theirs.
As for the logs I hadn’t heard that and would want to understand the provenance and whether they contained PII other than what the user shared. Whether they are kept secure or not, making them available to thousands of moderators is a privacy concern.
I’m looking forward to how AI Act will be interpreted in Europe with regards to the responsibility of OpenAI. I could see them having such a responsibility if a court decides that their product leads to sufficient impact on people lives. Not because they don’t advertise such a usage (like virtual therapist or virtual friend) but because users are using it that way in a reasonable fashion.