- Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
- Archive
- Page 79
Archive
Asking AI services: provide all possible counterarguments to Microsoft’s views as expressed in the Financial Times article. Copilot: AI tools could diminish the economic value of original works
Gemini: The precedents cited by Microsoft (VCR, player piano, etc.) may not be directly applicable to the complexities of AI and its potential impact on creative work
GPT-4: Integrating wise & experienced women with vast general knowledge into the boards of AI providers offers numerous benefits, particularly in promoting responsible & ethically sound AI development
ChatGPT-4: However, achieving this requires careful planning, openness to change, and a commitment to diversity beyond mere tokenism
Asking AI: List all issues that red-teamers can identify that AI makers most likely cannot fix. Gemini: fully understanding the reasoning behind an LLM's outputs might remain a hurdle
Completely preventing the LLM from being tricked into unintended actions through clever prompts might be a continuous battle. Completely eliminating bias might be impossible.
Asking AI: What is a better approach: proactive genome editing or reactive Neuralink-based guidance? Make a choice first, before providing the reasons why
"Genome editing may be more ethical & respectful of human dignity, autonomy & identity, while reactive Neuralink-based guidance may raise serious issues of privacy, security, consent & manipulation"
MS Copilot's analysis of the Lexology article: "Getty v. Stability AI case goes to trial in the UK - what we learned" - An AI model could potentially qualify as an infringing copy of its training data
The location of AI model training and development matters. Claimants need to demonstrate how the AI system works to prove infringement. Secondary infringement could apply to intangible software
MS Copilot's analysis of "Elon Musk vs OpenAI". The complaint seeks to compel the defendants to follow the original agreement and to return to their mission of developing AI for the public good
The agreement was to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, not for profit or power, and to make it open-source, meaning that anyone could access and use it
MS Copilot's analysis of "A.S. vs OpenAI and Microsoft". The complaint alleges that the defendants have unlawfully and harmfully developed, marketed, and operated their AI products...
...which use stolen private information from hundreds of millions of internet users without their informed consent or knowledge.
ChatGPT-4: In a hypothetical 2025 scenario where AI development mirrors a gold rush, the consequences could be profound, touching every aspect of society, economy, law, technology, and ethics.
The rapid pace of technological advancement, combined with the potential for state or non-state actors to exploit AI technologies maliciously, suggests that the scenario cannot be entirely dismissed
"Rethinking Privacy in the AI Era - Policy Provocations for a Data-Centric World" by Jennifer King and Caroline Meinhardt discusses the impact of AI on privacy and data protection in our modern world
The current mechanisms for obtaining consent and ensuring transparency about how data is used or decisions are made about individuals are deemed insufficient
