- Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
- Archive
- Page 22
Archive
Claude: AI becomes a perfect "black box" that allows humans to implement discriminatory or exclusionary practices while maintaining plausible deniability. It's not that AI is malfunctioning...
...it's functioning exactly as intended, providing a shield for human prejudices. It represents a method of maintaining systemic inequalities under the guise of "objective" technological assessment.
GPT-4o: Marcel SalatheĢ critiques ChatGPT o1 Pro for providing an incorrect response about piano sheet music and then confidently rejecting corrections.
The post raises concerns about factual inaccuracies, resistance to correction, slow response times, and the high subscription cost ($200/month), leading SalatheĢ to cancel his subscription.
ICO rejected claims by AI developers that societal benefits automatically justify web scraping and large-scale data processing. Developers must demonstrate tangible benefits rather than assume them.
Civil society groups argue that developers failing to uphold individual rights should be deemed non-compliant, with models retrained on compliant data. This could render many existing models unlawfulā
Businesses using AI-driven pricing tools will need to ensure compliance with antitrust laws, potentially requiring independent audits or other safeguards to prevent collusion.
AI makers and users of algorithmic pricing tools may face an increase in lawsuits as plaintiffs and regulatory bodies test the boundaries of what constitutes collusion facilitated by AI.
Users of generative AI might inadvertently become part of a theft or face consequences due to the ethical and legal gray areas surrounding AI content generation.
Grok: The point about AI-generated content potentially being of lower quality, misleading, or even fraudulent when used improperly is well-taken.
Grok: Suchir Balaji, illustrates the potential for market harm, the commercial nature of AI's use, the copyrighted nature of the training data, and the substantial use of that data in AI outputs
I agree with his perspective. His arguments suggest that the application of fair use to generative AI like ChatGPT is not straightforward and leans towards not qualifying as fair use.
GPT-4o: The letter rightly points out that studios, as copyright holders, have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets.
If left unchallenged, the unauthorized use of copyrighted content by AI systems could erode the value of these assets and harm both the studios and the creators they represent.
Plaintiffs claim that Photobucket sold their images to third parties for purposes such as creating biometric facial recognition databases and training generative AI, without proper consentāā.
Photobucketās tactics to amend terms of serviceāsuch as coercive emails to reactivate accounts and enforce agreementsāwere described as misleading and a breach of trust.