OpenAI 因 ChatGPT“幻觉”遭到第一起诽谤诉讼——揭露人工智能的真正危险

2023年6月13日14:09:28新人阅读OpenAI 因 ChatGPT“幻觉”遭到第一起诽谤诉讼——揭露人工智能的真正危险已关闭评论125字数 22108阅读73分41秒阅读模式



OpenAI 因 ChatGPT“幻觉”遭到第一起诽谤诉讼——揭露人工智能的真正危险

OpenAI 因 ChatGPT“幻觉”遭到第一起诽谤诉讼——揭露人工智能的真正危险

Image source.


Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

作者: Brian Shilhavy 编辑,健康影响新闻

AI chat programs have become such a huge part of the online culture so quickly, that many people are still fooled by its infancy and limitations, even though the owners of these AI programs have been very clear to warn the public that the text they produce CANNOT be trusted since they often produce false information or even just make stuff up, if the data that is needed to produce a correct response is not available.


They refer to this false information as AI “hallucination.”


Two recent news stories demonstrate just how foolish and dangerous it is to use programs like ChatGPT for real world applications by trusting in the output that ChatGPT provides.

最近的两则新闻报道表明,通过相信 ChatGPT 提供的输出,将 ChatGPT 这样的程序用于真实世界的应用程序是多么愚蠢和危险。

Isaiah Poritz of Bloomberg Law reported this week that OpenAI, the company that produces ChatGPT, was hit with its first defamation lawsuit when it allegedly falsely accused a Georgia man of embezzling money.

彭博法律(Bloomberg Law)的以赛亚•波里茨(Isaiah Poritz)本周报道称,生产 ChatGPT 的 OpenAI 公司因涉嫌虚假指控一名佐治亚州男子挪用公款而受到第一起诽谤诉讼的打击。

OpenAI Hit With First Defamation Suit Over ChatGPT Hallucination

OpenAI 因 ChatGPT 幻觉而遭到第一起诽谤诉讼

OpenAI LLC is facing a defamation lawsuit from a Georgia radio host who claimed the viral artificial intelligence program ChatGPT generated a false legal complaint accusing him of embezzling money.

OpenAI 有限责任公司(OpenAI LLC)正面临佐治亚州一名电台主持人的诽谤诉讼,该主持人声称,病毒式的人工智能程序 ChatGPT 引发了一起虚假的法律诉讼,指控他挪用公款。

The first-of-its-kind case comes as generative AI programs face heightened scrutiny over their ability to spread misinformation and “hallucinate” false outputs, including fake legal precedent.


Mark Walters said in his Georgia state court suit that the chatbot provided the false complaint to Fred Riehl, the editor-in-chief of the gun publication AmmoLand, who was reporting on a real life legal case playing out in Washington state.

马克 · 沃尔特斯(Mark Walters)在佐治亚州法院的诉讼中表示,聊天机器人向枪支出版物 AmmoLand 的主编弗雷德 · 里尔(Fred Riehl)提供了虚假投诉。里尔当时正在报道一起在华盛顿州进行的现实生活中的法律案件。

Riehl asked ChatGPT to provide a summary of Second Amendment Foundation v. Ferguson, a case in Washington federal court accusing the state’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson of abusing his power by chilling the activities of the gun rights foundation.

Riehl 要求 ChatGPT 提供第二修正案基金会诉 Ferguson 一案的摘要,该案在华盛顿联邦法院指控该州司法部长 Bob Ferguson 滥用职权,冻结枪支权利基金会的活动。

However, ChatGPT allegedly provided a summary of the case to Riehl that said the Second Amendment Foundation’s founder Alan Gottlieb was suing Walters for “defrauding and embezzling funds” from the foundation as chief financial officer and treasurer.

然而,据称 ChatGPT 向里尔提供了一份案情摘要,称第二修正案基金会(Second Amendment Foundation)创始人艾伦•戈特利布(Alan Gottlieb)起诉沃尔特斯作为首席财务官和财务主管“欺诈和挪用”该基金会的资金。

“Every statement of fact in the summary pertaining to Walters is false,” according to the defamation suit, filed on June 5.


OpenAI didn’t immediately return a request for comment. (Full article.)

OpenAI 没有立即回复置评请求

In another recent report, an attorney was actually foolish enough to use ChatGPT to research court cases in an actual lawsuit, and it found bogus lawsuits that did not even exist, and this was filed in a New York court of law! The judge, understandably, was outraged.


Lawyer uses ChatGPT in court and now ‘greatly regrets’ it

律师在法庭上使用 ChatGPT,现在“非常后悔”

A New York attorney has been blasted for using ChatGPT for legal research as part of a lawsuit against a Columbian airline.

一名纽约律师因使用 ChatGPT 进行法律研究而受到抨击,这是针对一家哥伦比亚航空公司的诉讼的一部分。

Steven Schwartz, an attorney with the New York law firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, was hired by Robert Mata to pursue an injury claim against Avianca Airlines.

纽约律师事务所 Levidow,Levidow & Oberman 的律师史蒂文 · 施瓦茨(Steven Schwartz)受雇于罗伯特 · 马塔(Robert Mata) ,对阿维安卡航空公司(Avianca Airlines)提起伤害索赔。

Mata claims he sustained the injury from a serving cart during his flight with the airline in 2019, according to a May 28 report from CNN Business.


However, after a judge noticed inconsistencies and factual errors in the case documentation, Schwartz has admitted to using ChatGPT for his legal research, according to a May 24 sworn affidavit.

然而,根据5月24日的宣誓书,在一名法官注意到案件文件中的不一致和事实错误后,施瓦茨承认使用 ChatGPT 进行法律研究。

He claims that this was his first time using ChatGPT for legal research and “was unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”

他声称这是他第一次使用 ChatGPT 进行法律研究,并且“没有意识到其内容可能是虚假的”

In an April 5 court filing, the judge presiding over the case stated:


“Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.”


The judge further claimed that certain cases referenced in the submissions did not exist, and there was an instance where a docket number on a filing was mixed up with another court filing. (Full article.)


I came across an excellent article today by Aleksandar Svetski exposing the hype around Chat AI and detailing the real dangers to Chat AI, which he refers to as “The Great Homogenization,” where all the data on the Internet is controlled to a single narrative, something that I have been warning about as well.

今天,我偶然读到了 Aleksandar Svetski 写的一篇很棒的文章,文章揭露了对聊天人工智能的大肆宣传,并详细描述了聊天人工智能的真正危险,他称之为“伟大的同质化”,在这种情况下,互联网上的所有数据都被控制在一个单一的叙述中,这也是我一直在警告的事情。

This is a must-read article if you want to fully understand what is going on today with Chat AI, and how to fight back.




As artificial intelligence grows, so do attempts to control it. But, if we can differentiate the real risks from the fake risks, this technology could be used to encourage diversity of thought and ideas.


by Aleksandar Svetski
Bitcoin Magazine

作者: Aleksandar Svetski 比特币杂志



The world is changing before our very eyes. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a paradigm-shifting technological breakthrough, but probably not for the reasons you might think or imagine.


You’ve probably heard something along the lines of, “Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is around the corner,” or, “Now that language is solved, the next step is conscious AI.”


Well… I’m here to tell you that those concepts are both red herrings. They are either the naive delusions of technologists who believe God is in the circuits, or the deliberate incitement of fear and hysteria by more malevolent people with ulterior motives.


do not think AGI is a threat or that we have an “AI safety problem,” or that we’re around the corner from some singularity with machines.

我不认为 AGI 是一个威胁,也不认为我们存在“人工智能安全问题”,或者我们即将面临机器的某种奇点。



I do believe this technological paradigm shift poses a significant threat to humanity — which is in fact, about the only thing I can somewhat agree on with the mainstream — but for completely different reasons.


To learn what they are, let’s first try to understand what’s really happening here.



介绍... 随机鹦鹉!

Technology is an amplifier. It makes the good better, and the bad worse.


Just as a hammer is technology that can be used to build a house or beat someone over the head, computers can be used to document ideas that change the world, or they can be used to operate central bank digital currencies (CDBCs) that enslave you into crazy, communist cat ladies working at the European Central Bank.

就像锤子是一种可以用来建房子或者打人头的技术一样,计算机可以用来记录改变世界的想法,或者它们可以用来操作央行的数字货币(CDBC) ,把你奴役成在欧洲央行工作的疯狂的共产主义猫女。

The same goes for AI. It is a tool. It is a technology. It is not a new lifeform, despite what the lonely nerds who are calling for progress to shut down so desperately want to believe.


What makes generative AI so interesting is not that it is sentient, but that it’s the first time in our history that we are “speaking” or communicating with something other than a human being, in a coherent fashion. The closest we’ve been to that before this point has been with… parrots.

生成性人工智能之所以如此有趣,并不是因为它具有感知能力,而是因为这是人类历史上第一次我们以一种连贯的方式与人类以外的东西“说话”或进行交流。在此之前,我们最接近的就是... 鹦鹉。

Yes: parrots!

是的: 鹦鹉!

You can train a parrot to kind of talk and talk back, and you can kind of understand it, but because we know it’s not really a human and doesn’t really understand anything, we’re not so impressed.


But generative AI… well, that’s a different story. We’ve been acquainted with it for six months now (in the mainstream) and we have no real idea how it works under the hood. We type some words, and it responds like that annoying, politically-correct, midwit nerd who you know from class… or your average Netflix show.

但是生成性人工智能... 那就另当别论了。我们已经熟悉它六个月了(在主流) ,我们不知道它是如何在引擎盖下工作的。我们输入一些单词,它的反应就像那个讨厌的,政治正确的,你在课堂上认识的书呆子... 或者一般的 Netflix 节目。

In fact, you’ve probably even spoken with someone like this during support calls to, or any other service in which you’ve had to dial in or web chat. As such, you’re immediately shocked by the responses.

事实上,你甚至可能在 的支持电话中和这样的人交谈过,或者在任何其他你必须拨入或网络聊天的服务中。因此,你会立即被这些反应所震惊。

“Holy shit,” you tell yourself. “This thing speaks like a real person!”


The English is immaculate. No spelling mistakes. Sentences make sense. It is not only grammatically accurate, but semantically so, too.


Holy shit! It must be alive!

该死! 它一定是活的!

Little do you realize that you are speaking to a highly-sophisticated, stochastic parrot. As it turns out, language is a little more rules-based than what we all thought, and probability engines can actually do an excellent job of emulating intelligence through the frame or conduit of language.


The law of large numbers strikes again, and math achieves another victory!


But… what does this mean? What the hell is my point?

但是... 这是什么意思? 我到底想说什么?

That this is not useful? That it’s proof it’s not a path to AGI?

证明这没用? 证明这不是通往 AGI 的道路?

Not necessarily, on both counts.


There is lots of utility in such a tool. In fact, the greatest utility probably lies in its application as “MOT,” or “Midwit Obsolescence Technology.” Woke journalists and the countless “content creators” who have for years been talking a lot but saying nothing, are now like dinosaurs watching the comet incinerate everything around them. It’s a beautiful thing. Life wins again.

这样的工具有很多实用性。事实上,最大的实用性可能在于它作为“ MOT”的应用,或者“智障淘汰技术”被唤醒的记者和数不清的“内容创造者”多年来一直在大谈特谈,但什么也没说,现在他们就像恐龙一样看着彗星烧毁周围的一切。这是件美好的事情。生活又赢了。

Of course, these tools are also great for ideating, coding faster, doing some high-level learning, etc.


But from an AGI and consciousness standpoint, who knows? There mayyyyyyyyyyy be a pathway there, but my spidey sense tells me we’re way off, so I’m not holding my breath. I think consciousness is so much more complex, and to think we’ve conjured it up with probability machines is some strange blend of ignorant, arrogant, naive and… well… empty.

但是从人工智能和意识的角度来看,谁知道呢?那里可能有一条路,但我的蜘蛛感觉告诉我,我们离得太远了,所以我没有屏住呼吸。我觉得意识要复杂得多想想我们用概率机器创造出来的意识是无知,傲慢,天真和... 好吧... 空虚的奇怪混合体。

So, what the hell is my problem and what’s the risk?




Remember what I said about tools.


Computers are arguably the most powerful tool mankind has built. And computers have gone through the following evolution:


  1. Punch cards
  2. 打孔卡
  3. Command line
  4. 命令行
  5. Graphical user interface, i.e., point and click
  6. 图形用户界面,即点击
  7. Mobile, i.e., thumbs and tapping
  8. 移动,也就是说,拇指和敲击
OpenAI 因 ChatGPT“幻觉”遭到第一起诽谤诉讼——揭露人工智能的真正危险

Source: Author

来源: 作者

And now, we’re moving into the age of the LUI, or “Language User Interface.”


This is the big paradigm shift. It’s not AGI, but LUI. Moving forward, every app we interact with will have a conversational interface, and we will no longer be limited by the bandwidth of how fast our fingers can tap on keys or screens.

这是一个重大的范式转变。不是 AGI,是 LUI。展望未来,我们使用的每一个应用程序都将有一个会话界面,我们将不再受限于手指敲击键盘或屏幕的速度。

Speaking “language” is orders of magnitude faster than typing and tapping. Thinking is probably another level higher, but I’m not putting any electrodes into my head anytime soon. In fact, LUIs probably obsolete the need for Neuralink-type tech because the risks associated with implanting chips into your brain will outweigh any marginal benefit over just speaking.

说“语言”的数量级比打字和敲击要快。思考可能是另一个更高的层次,但我不会把任何电极进入我的大脑很快。事实上,LUI 可能已经过时了对神经链接类技术的需求,因为将芯片植入大脑的风险将超过仅仅说话带来的边际效益。

In any case, this decade we will go from tapping on graphical user interfaces, to talking to our apps.


And therein lies the danger.


In the same way Google today determines what we see in searches, and Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram all “feed us” through their feeds; generative AI will tomorrow determine the answers to every question we have.

同样,今天的谷歌决定了我们在搜索中看到什么,而推特(Twitter)、脸书(Facebook)、 Tik Tok 和 Instagram 都通过它们的 feed“向我们提供信息”,明天,生成性人工智能将决定我们所有问题的答案。

The screen not only becomes the lens through which you ingest everything about the world. The screen becomes your model of the world.


Mark Bisone wrote a fantastic article about this recently, which I urge you to read:

Mark Bisone 最近写了一篇关于这个问题的精彩文章,我强烈建议你读一读:

“The problem of ‘screens’ is actually a very old one. In many ways it goes back to Plato’s cave, and perhaps is so deeply embedded in the human condition that it precedes written languages. That’s because when we talk about a screen, we’re really talking about the transmission of an illusory model in an editorialized form.


“The trick works like this: You are presented with the image of a thing (and these days, with the sound of it), which its presenter either explicitly tells you or strongly implies is a window to the Real. The shadow and the form are the same, in other words, and the former is to be trusted as much as any fragment of reality that you can directly observe with your sensory organs.”

“这个技巧是这样的: 你被呈现在一个事物的形象(这些天,它的声音) ,它的呈现者要么明确地告诉你,要么强烈地暗示它是一扇通往真实的窗户。换句话说,影子和形体是一样的,前者和你可以用感官直接观察到的任何现实碎片一样值得信赖。”

And, for those thinking that “this won’t happen for a while,” well here are the bumbling fools making a good attempt at it.




Imagine every question you ask, every image you request, every video you conjure up, every bit of data you seek, being returned in such a way that is deemed “safe,” “responsible” or “acceptable” by some faceless “safety police.”


Imagine every bit of information you consume has been transformed into some lukewarm, middle version of the truth, that every opinion you ask for is not really an opinion or a viewpoint, but some inoffensive, apologetic response that doesn’t actually tell you anything (this is the benign, annoying version) or worse, is some ideology wrapped in a response so that everything you know becomes some variation of what the manufacturers of said “safe AI” want you to think and know.

想象一下,你消费的每一点信息都被转化成了某种不温不火的中间版本的真理,你所要求的每一个意见并不是真正的意见或观点,而是一些无害的、带有歉意的回应,实际上并没有告诉你任何东西(这是一个良性的、恼人的版本) ,或者更糟糕的是,这些回应包含了某种意识形态,所以你所知道的一切都变成了所谓“安全人工智能”制造商希望你思考。

Imagine you had modern Disney characters, like those clowns from “The Eternals” movie, as your ever-present intellectual assistants. It would make you “dumb squared.”


The UnCommunist Manifesto” outlined the utopian communist dream as the grand homogenization of man:


If only everyone were a series of numbers on a spreadsheet, or automatons with the same opinion, it would be so much easier to have paradise on earth. You could ration out just enough for everyone, and then we’d be all equally miserable proletariats.


This is like George Orwell’s thought police crossed with “Inception,” because every question you had would be perfectly captured and monitored, and every response from the AI could incept an ideology in your mind. In fact, when you think about it, that’s what information does. It plants seeds in your mind.

这就像乔治 · 奥威尔的思想警察与“盗梦空间”的交叉,因为你的每一个问题都会被完美地捕捉和监控,而人工智能的每一个反应都可以在你的头脑中植入一种意识形态。事实上,当你思考的时候,信息就是这样的。它在你的脑海中播下种子。

This is why you need a diverse set of ideas in the minds of men! You want a flourishing rainforest in your mind, not some mono-crop field of wheat, with deteriorated soil, that is susceptible to weather and insects, and completely dependent on Monsanto (or Open AI or Pfizer) for its survival. You want your mind to flourish and for that you need idea-versity.


This was the promise of the internet. A place where anyone can say anything. The internet has been a force for good, but it is under attack. Whether that’s been the de-anonymization of social profiles like those on Twitter and Facebook, and the creeping KYC across all sorts of online platforms, through to the algorithmic vomit that is spewed forth from the platforms themselves. We tasted that in all its glory from 2020. And it seems to be only getting worse.

这是互联网的承诺。一个任何人都可以畅所欲言的地方。互联网一直是一股向善的力量,但它正受到攻击。无论是像 Twitter 和 Facebook 这样的社交网站的去匿名化,还是各种各样的在线平台上蔓延的 KYC,甚至是从平台本身喷涌而出的算法呕吐物。我们品尝了2020年以来的所有荣耀。情况似乎只会越来越糟。

The push by WEF-like organizations to institute KYC for online identities, and tie it to a CBDC and your iris is one alternative, but it’s a bit overt and explicit. After the pushback on medical experimentation of late, such a move may be harder to pull off. An easier move could be to allow LUIs to take over (as they will, because they’re a superior user experience) and in the meantime create an “AI safety council” that will institute “safety” filters on all major large language models (LLMs).

类似世界经济论坛的组织推动建立 KYC 在线身份,并将其与 CBDC 和你的虹膜联系起来,这是一种选择,但它有点公开和明确。在最近对医学实验的抵制之后,这样的举措可能更难实现。更简单的做法可能是允许 LUI 接管(因为他们会,因为他们是一个卓越的用户体验) ,同时创建一个“人工智能安全委员会”,将在所有主要的大型语言模型(LLM)上建立“安全”过滤器。

Don’t believe me? Our G7 overlords are discussing it already.

不相信我? 我们的 G7霸主已经在讨论了。

Today, the web is still made up of webpages, and if you’re curious enough, you can find the deep, dark corners and crevices of dissidence. You can still surf the web. Mostly. But when everything becomes accessible only through these models, you’re not surfing anything anymore. You’re simply being given a synthesis of a response that has been run through all the necessary filters and censors.


There will probably be a sprinkle of truth somewhere in there, but it will be wrapped up in so much “safety” that 99.9% of people won’t hear or know of it. The truth will become that which the model says it is.

这里面可能会有一些真相,但是它被包裹在如此多的“安全”之中,以至于99.9% 的人不会听到或者知道它。真相会变成模型所说的那样。

I’m not sure what happens to much of the internet when discoverability of information fundamentally transforms. I can imagine that, as most applications transition to some form of language interface, it’s going to be very hard to find things that the “portal” you’re using doesn’t deem safe or approved.


One could, of course, make the argument that in the same way you need the tenacity and curiosity to find the dissident crevices on the web, you’ll need to learn to prompt and hack your way into better answers on these platforms.


And that may be true, but it seems to me that for each time you find something “unsafe,” the route shall be patched or blocked.


You could then argue that “this could backfire on them, by diminishing the utility of the tool.”


And once again, I would probably agree. In a free market, such stupidity would make way for better tools.


But of course, the free market is becoming a thing of the past. What we are seeing with these hysterical attempts to push for “safety” is that they are either knowingly or unknowingly paving the way for squashing possible alternatives.


In creating “safety” committees that “regulate” these platforms (read: regulate speech), new models that are not run through such “safety or toxicity filters” will not be available for consumer usage, or they may be made illegal, or hard to discover. How many people still use Tor? Or DuckDuckGo?

在创建“安全”委员会来“规范”这些平台(即: 规范言论)的过程中,没有经过这些“安全或毒性过滤器”的新模型将不能供消费者使用,或者它们可能被视为非法或难以发现。还有多少人在用 Tor?还是 DuckDuckGo?

And if you think this isn’t happening, here’s some information on the current toxicity filters that most LLMs already plug into. It’s only a matter of time before such filters become like KYC mandates on financial applications. A new compliance appendage, strapped onto language models like tits on a bull.

如果你认为这没有发生,这里有一些关于当前毒性过滤器的信息,大多数 LLM 已经插入。这种过滤器变得像 KYC 对金融应用程序的要求一样只是时间问题。一个新的服从附件,像公牛的奶子一样绑在语言模型上。

Whatever the counter-argument to this homogenization attempt, both actually support my point that we need to build alternatives, and we need to begin that process now.


For those who still tend to believe that AGI is around the corner and that LLMs are a significant step in that direction, by all means, you’re free to believe what you want, but that doesn’t negate the point of this essay.

对于那些仍然倾向于认为 AGI 即将到来,LLM 是朝着这个方向迈出的重要一步的人来说,无论如何,你可以自由地相信你想要的东西,但这并不否定本文的观点。

If language is the new “screen” and all the language we see or hear must be run through approved filters, the information we consume, the way we learn, the very thoughts we have, will all be narrowed into a very small Overton window.


I think that’s a massive risk for humanity.


We’ve become dumb enough with social media algorithms serving us what the platforms think we should know. And when they wanted to turn on the hysteria, it was easy. Language user interfaces are social media times 100.


Imagine what they can do with that, the next time a so-called “crisis” hits?


It won’t be pretty.


The marketplace of ideas is necessary to a healthy and functional society. That’s what I want.


Their narrowing of thought won’t work long term, because it’s anti-life. In the end, it will fail, just like every other attempt to bottle up truth and ignore it. But each attempt comes with unnecessary damage, pain, loss and catastrophe. That’s what I am trying to avoid and help ring the bell for.




If we’re not proactive here, this whole AI revolution could become the “great homogenization.” To avoid that, we have to do two main things:


  1. Push back against the “AI safety” narratives: These might look like safety committees on the surface, but when you dig a little deeper, you realize they are speech and thought regulators.

反对“人工智能安全”的说法: 这些看起来可能像表面上的安全委员会,但是当你再深入一点,你就会意识到他们是言论和思想的监管者。

2.Build alternatives, now: Build many and open source them. The sooner we do this, and the sooner they can run more locally, the better chance we have to avoid a world in which everything trends toward homogenization.

现在就构建替代方案: 构建许多替代方案并开放源代码。我们越早这样做,它们就能越早在本地运行,我们就越有可能避免一个所有事情都趋向同质化的世界。

If we do this, we can have a world with real diversity — not the woke kind of bullshit. I mean diversity of thought, diversity of ideas, diversity of viewpoints and a true marketplace of ideas.


An idea-versity. What the original promise of the internet was. And not bound by the low bandwidth of typing and tapping.



  • 本文由 发表于 2023年6月13日14:09:28
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接