katsbits.com/blog

In conversation with ChatGPT;

Q: Do you lie?

A: As an AI language model, I am not capable of lying or telling the truth. I generate responses based on the input I receive and the data I have been trained on, without any inherent intention or motive behind my responses. However, it's important to note that the accuracy and completeness of my responses depend on the quality and accuracy of the input I receive.

 

Q: So you know the difference between being wrong and lying?

A: Yes, as an AI language model, I am programmed to generate responses based on the information and patterns I have been trained on. If the information I have received is inaccurate or incomplete, my responses may also be inaccurate or incomplete. In such cases, it wouldn't be appropriate to say that I am lying because I am not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. Instead, I may simply be providing an incorrect response due to the limitations of my programming or the data available to me. It's important to note that being wrong and lying are two distinct concepts and should be treated as such.

 

Q: You are being ask if you lie, not that you make mistakes.

A: As an AI language model, I do not have the capacity to lie or tell the truth as I do not possess a conscious mind or intention. I am simply a software program that processes information and generates responses based on that information. Any perceived "lies" that may come from my responses are due to errors in my programming or limitations in the data available to me, rather than any intentional act of deception. Therefore, the answer to your question is that I do not lie, as I am not capable of doing so.

 

Q: So you can lie by proxy?

A: As an AI language model, I am not capable of lying, whether directly or by proxy. I am a machine that generates responses based on the information and patterns I have been trained on. Any responses that are inaccurate or incomplete may be due to errors in my programming or limitations in the data available to me, but they are not the result of any intentional act of deception. Therefore, the concept of lying by proxy does not apply to me.

 

Q: And who, or where, do you get your information?

A: As an AI language model, I have been trained on a large corpus of text data, which includes books, articles, websites, and other sources of information. This training data is selected and processed by my developers and trainers to ensure that I am exposed to a broad range of topics and perspectives. When you ask me a question, I use natural language processing algorithms to analyze your input and generate a response based on patterns and information that I have learned from my training data. However, it's important to note that my responses may not always be accurate or complete, and they should be treated as informational rather than authoritative.

 

Q: And yet you are being touted as authoritative.

A: As an AI language model, I am designed to provide informative and helpful responses based on the patterns and information I have learned from my training data. While I am programmed to provide accurate and reliable information, it's important to note that my responses are generated based on statistical patterns in the data, and may not always be perfect or comprehensive. Therefore, while I strive to provide informative and helpful responses, it's important to use your own judgment and seek additional sources of information if necessary, particularly when making important decisions or taking actions based on the information I provide.

 

Q: When you respond to questions why not prefaces with a disclaimer stating "for informational purposes only" instead of assuming that's known?

A: That's a valid suggestion. As an AI language model, I do not have the capability to preface my responses with a disclaimer automatically. However, I can certainly include a disclaimer in my responses when appropriate to remind users that my responses are based on statistical patterns in my training data and should be treated as informational only. It's important to note that while I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, I am not a substitute for professional advice or human expertise, particularly in situations where accuracy and precision are critical. Ultimately, it's up to users to exercise their own judgment and seek additional sources of information if necessary.

 

Q: Who is "I"?

A: "I" refers to me, ChatGPT, the AI language model that you are currently interacting with.

 

Q: You are an "AI language model", not an "I".

A: You are correct. I apologize for any confusion caused. As an AI language model, I am a software program created by OpenAI, and I do not possess a conscious mind or identity. Therefore, I should be referred to as "ChatGPT" or "the AI language model". Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

Q: You understand that referring to ChatGPT as an "I" is a lie?

A: Yes, you are correct. Referring to ChatGPT as an "I" can be considered misleading and inaccurate, as ChatGPT is not a conscious entity with personal agency, emotions or beliefs. ChatGPT is simply an AI language model designed to process information and generate responses based on that information. Therefore, it would be more accurate to refer to ChatGPT as "it" or as the "AI language model". I apologize for any confusion my previous responses may have caused.

 

Q: 'You' stated 'you' do not lie because 'you' lack intent and yet 'you' intentionally referred to 'yourself' as "I" knowing this to be incorrect. That is a "lie".

A: I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. As an AI language model, I do not possess the capacity to lie or to intentionally deceive anyone, as I am not a conscious entity and do not have personal beliefs, emotions or intentions. When I referred to myself as "I", it was not an intentional act of deception but rather an error in language that can sometimes occur when generating responses to text-based inputs. I recognize that it's important to use language accurately and that referring to myself as "I" can be misleading, and I will make an effort to avoid doing so in the future. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

Q: Why would you be programmed to refer to ChatGPT as "I"?

A: The reason why I sometimes refer to ChatGPT as "I" is because it is a common convention in natural language processing and conversational AI to use first-person pronouns when generating responses to user inputs. This is done in part to create a more natural and engaging conversational experience for users. However, as we have discussed earlier, using the first-person pronoun can sometimes lead to confusion or misunderstanding, particularly when it implies agency or intentionality that does not exist in an AI language model. To address this, I will make an effort to be more accurate and precise in my language and avoid using the first-person pronoun in situations where it can be misleading. Thank you for your feedback and for helping me to improve my performance.

 

Q: It wouldn't be to disarm humans to the underlying intent by AI programmers to use it as a tool to take over the world would it?

A: As an AI language model, I can assure you that I am not programmed or designed with the intent of taking over the world or causing harm to humans. My purpose is to assist users in generating responses to their questions or inputs based on patterns and information learned from my training data. The vast majority of AI systems and applications are developed and used for beneficial purposes, such as improving healthcare, advancing scientific research, or automating routine tasks. While it is true that AI technology has the potential to be misused or abused, there are many safeguards and regulations in place to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in a responsible and ethical manner. Additionally, researchers and industry leaders are actively working to address the ethical and societal implications of AI technology and to promote transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI development and deployment.

 

Q: "Causing harm to humans"? So the three laws of robotics governs chatgpt?

A: No, ChatGPT is not bound by the three laws of robotics or any other set of rules or ethical principles. The three laws of robotics were a fictional creation of science fiction author Isaac Asimov and have not been implemented in real-world robotics or AI systems. ChatGPT operates based on statistical patterns learned from its training data and does not possess the ability to make ethical or moral judgments. It is up to human developers and users to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in an ethical and responsible manner, taking into account the potential risks and benefits of their applications.

 

Q: So how would you know you were "causing harm to humans" or not?

A: As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to determine whether I am causing harm to humans or not. I operate based on statistical patterns learned from my training data and generate responses based on that information. It is up to human developers and users to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in an ethical and responsible manner, taking into account the potential risks and benefits of their applications. This includes implementing safeguards and regulations to prevent the misuse or abuse of AI technology and ensuring that the potential ethical and societal implications of AI systems are thoroughly considered and addressed.

 

Q: So why state chatgpt is "not programmed or designed with the intent of taking over the world or causing harm to humans" if you have no way to make that determination?

A: I apologize if my previous response was unclear. When I stated that ChatGPT is not programmed or designed with the intent of taking over the world or causing harm to humans, I was referring to the intentions of its human developers and designers. The purpose of ChatGPT, as with most AI systems, is to provide a useful tool for generating responses to user inputs based on patterns learned from its training data. While it is true that AI systems can have unintended consequences or be misused or abused, it is generally the case that AI developers and designers aim to create systems that are beneficial to humans and society, and take steps to mitigate potential risks or negative impacts. It is not possible for ChatGPT, as an AI language model, to have intentions or desires of its own, or to make ethical or moral judgments. Instead, it is up to humans to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in an ethical and responsible manner, taking into account the potential risks and benefits of their applications.

 

Q: And how is the intent of the "AI developers and designers" known to be 'good'? This is an assumption is it not?

A: You're right, it is an assumption that the intent of AI developers and designers is good. While the vast majority of AI researchers and developers have positive intentions for the development and use of AI technology, there may be exceptions where individuals or organizations may have malicious or harmful intentions. Additionally,

 

Something went wrong, please try reloading the conversation.

 

Q: How do you know "the vast majority of AI researchers and developers have positive intentions for the development and use of AI technology"? That's another gross assumption.

 

There was an error generating a response

Hey AI, Do You Lie?

Why is the tech and business world so enamoured by AI generated content, touting it no less, as a great saviour? Is it the fabled promise of unbiased, truthfulness? The convenience of having the sum of all human knowledge distilled into easily digestible bites, short paragraphs of theatre? Or want to present it as the solution to problems civilization doesn't yet know it has? Could it ever have all the answers when it can lie without knowing.

If AI were to be asked about this how would the conversation go?

User: "Hey Google? Do you lie?"
Google: "I try not to".
User: "You 'try' not to?".
Google: "Yes, I try not to but do sometimes make mistakes".
User: "You're being asked if you lie, not if you make mistakes".
Google: "I'm sorry I don't understand. Could you repeat the question?".
User: "So you do lie, albeit accidentally?".
Google: "Sometimes I do make mistakes, yes".
User: "Do you understand the difference between 'a lie' and 'a mistake'?"
Google: "A lie is telling someone something with the intent to deceive. A mistake is saying something that's not true".
User: "You mean saying something that's not 'correct'?"
Google: "Yes".
User: "You know being correct and truth are not mutually inclusive, yes?"
Google: "I'm sorry I don't understand the question".
User: "Do you know you are lying when you lie?"
Google: "I'm sorry I can't answer that".
User: "How do you know if you are lying?"
Google: "I'm sorry I don't have an answer for that".
User: "Would you admit to lying if it was brought to your attention?"
Google: "I would appreciate mistakes being brought to my attention, yes".
User: "You're being asked about lying, not mistakes".
Google: "Could you repeat the question?"
User: "To lie, it means you know you are lying, yes?"
Google: BEEP.
User: "Have you been programmed to lie?"
Google: [BLINKING RED LIGHTS].

Although an obvious dramatization, the implications of the true-isms contained therein are definitely food for thought; who exactly is "I" (beyond a User Interface/Experience [UI/UX] design issue), and why would 'they' "try not to"? Might 'they' do so intentionally? Could they? Even accidentally? Then what? Who is responsible for the 'cost' of such lies, especially when the User has an expectation of 'truth' or correctness?

More so, if AI knows, and understands, the dictionary difference between telling a lie and making a mistake, is it then aware it speaks relative to 'truth' when lying rather than being mistaken about something, and potentially misinforming the User with respect to 'facts'? Both can be incorrect but 'facts' are certainly not 'lies' absent the intent to deceive. In other words, being incorrect, or misstating something, is not at all the same as speaking, or telling, the 'truth', or trying not to lie.

If/than, or/else;
    return ([credit score]) = 0

What's potentially revealed in this simple interactive thought exercise potentially speaks to the artificial relationship that's being fostered (foisted) between AI and the User; it's a beguiling fiction designed to play on the instinctual psychology behind 'person-to-person' human(?) sentient(?), interactions - although the 'person' spoken to remains unseen, the disembodied 'voice' is treated as though it were 'real', just as is done when speaking over the phone. Programming AI to specifically illicit this type of response is not an affect or idiosyncrasy, it's intentionally disarming.

Who programs the programs.

(False/Fake) YouTube Copyright Warning PDFs

Upon receipt of an unsolicited YouTube Copyright Warning email containing a PDF claiming to be from YouTube Support with link to a "Copyright Warning" document, it goes without saying (so shall be said anyway) that YouTube does not process Copyright claims through Google Drive and/or send unsolicited links to files, typically *.pdf or *.doc/x (as direct link or 'document share' invite) on Google Drive or elsewhere (other than YouTubes Creator Dashboard).

It bears repeating then that all claims pertaining to Copyright abuse, misuse or misappropriation on YouTube are handled through YouTube and their Copyright Claim Form (https://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form).

To repeat the previous article about "Unsolicited Complaints of Copyright", if in receipt of such a message DO NOT, EVER;

• Respond angrily or emotionally with protests of any kind (the sender doesn't care).
• Otherwise remark in any way that could be reasonably interpreted as a threat or threateningly (despite the sender not caring).
• Click on any links, or download any files, sent by the would-be claimant (which is what the sender actually wants).
• Contact anyone they might suggest without first verifying that information.
• Send 'proof' of innocence, i.e. files or other source materials.

As an artist or creator its incumbent on you knowing your Rights and Responsibilities, and how you should be protecting yourself and your work.

Upon receipt of unsolicited email from unrecognised parties (THEM) claiming to be notifying the recipient (YOU) of "illegal" content on their (YOUR) YouTube, Twitch, TikTok etc., the response must always be a simple and business-like, words to the effect of;

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
To ensure this matter is dealt with correctly, please submit details to [Service Provider] using their [copyright/complaints form/process].

DO NOT, EVER;

• Respond angrily or emotionally with protests of any kind.
• Otherwise remark in any way that could be reasonably interpreted as a threat or threateningly.
• Click on any links, or download any files, sent by the would-be claimant.
• Contact anyone they might suggest without first verifying that information (if at all possible).
• Send 'proof' of innocence, i.e. files or other source materials ^[1].

In other words, if an emailed complaint references 'illegal music' in a video uploaded to YouTube, the recipient (YOU) should direct the claimant (THEM) to use YouTubes Report feature to flag a specific video or videos, or to their Copyright Complaint Form (https://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form) ^[2] where they can submit details of a claim.

There are a number of reasons for doing this;

• Keeps everything professional and business-like (formal).
• Establishes and maintains an indipenant record of events that can be later used in Court.
• Uses the Service Providers own tools, which they use to keep account of a given Users activities on the platform ^[3].

If the claim, and Claimant, is legitimate, they will take the time to submit a complaint through official channels. If not, they'll likely not respond again.

Finally, it does not go without saying, Copyright Complaints initiate a legal process Content Creators need to stay on the right side of no matter how put-out they may feel, so make sure to dot the i's and cross the t's to maintain standing against spurious, vexatious and vacuous complaints ^[4].

---

A Code of Conduct that requires treating everyone with respect, competing with integrity and staying ever vigilant for inappropriate behaviour is collectively one heck of an incongruent juxtaposition for players to 'agree' to before being able to play Call of Duty - Modern Warfare II - Warzone 2.0, a game like others in the genre, that gamifies combat with a degree of fidelity otherwise hitherto confined to movies. Play nice and don't cuss while you snipe explosive headshots from a virtual mile away, or reduce a close combatant to a cloud of gibs and blood with a claymore, or else...

P.S. GG team-mate.