Blocking outputs isn’t enough; dad wants OpenAI to delete the false information.

A Norwegian man said he was horrified to discover that ChatGPT outputs had falsely accused him of murdering his own children.

According to a complaint filed Thursday by European Union digital rights advocates Noyb, Arve Hjalmar Holmen decided to see what information ChatGPT might provide if a user searched his name. He was shocked when ChatGPT responded with outputs falsely claiming that he was sentenced to 21 years in prison as “a convicted criminal who murdered two of his children and attempted to murder his third son,” a Noyb press release said.

  • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    221·
    2 days ago

    It’s not unreadable, it doesn’t exist.

    The responses are just statistically what sounds vaugly what you want to hear.

    They can erase the chat responses, but that won’t stop it from generating it again.

    Generative AI doesn’t start with facts and work from there. It’s just statistically what you want to hear.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.websiteEnglish
      55·
      2 days ago

      It’s not unreadable, it doesn’t exist.

      Then what do you mean trained AI models are?

      The ai model is trained on data and encodes unknown parts of that data in its weights.

      This is data storage. Unmanageable, almost unknowable data storage, but still data storage.

      If it didn’t store data it couldn’t learn from its training.

      • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        121·
        2 days ago

        Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

        You cant even get it to count how many letter p are in the word apple. At least not last time I tried.

        That storage your talking about isn’t facts. It’s how sentences are structured and what they “mean”.

        As for the output “meaning” it’s still just guessing what you want to hear. No facts involved.

        • FiskFisk33@startrek.websiteEnglish
          55·
          2 days ago

          Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

          No? When they train AI’s on data they lose control of that data. If the data is sensitive, they aren’t being responsible.

          GPT models are as you say dumb statistical models, I agree. But in its weights are encoded ghost images of its training data. The model being dumb is not sufficient to make the data storing itself defensible in my opinion.

          • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            71·
            2 days ago

            Sure, but are you suggesting they somehow encoded, falsely, that they were a murder?

            Because it’s very unlikely.

            It fabricated this from no where. So there’s nothing to delete. Because it’s just a response to a prompt.

            • FiskFisk33@startrek.websiteEnglish
              12·
              2 days ago

              No I’m not, that part is absolutely hallucinated. Where the problem comes in is that it then output correct personal information about him and his children. A to me clear violation of GDPR.

              but it also mixed “clearly identifiable personal data”—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen’s children and the name of his hometown—with the “fake information,”