Ask HN: Will ChatGPT have a monopoly on truth worse than search engines

ChatGPT is unlikely to be the only player in the category for very long. Megacorps are all over this. MAANGs are spending $10 B's to be in this space long-term.

Algorithms of all kinds do, and will, have influence over individuals to motivate them to discover, believe, do, and learn particular memes while not others.

The problem then becomes an irreducible one of "teaching" an algorithms morality and ethics, critical thinking, and due-diligence. These maybe possible eventually, but are much more difficult than individual snippets of generative media. We're not at even a good point of capturing and giving algorithms specific constructive feedback from users on what's wrong with a particular sentence or image.

I sincerely hope not. I got past the safeguards early on and requested it to give me instructions on how to make plastic explosives, to do this I had to use a very complex and specific prompt. When I had the lab procedure generated, I sent it over to a friend who has a PhD in Chemical Engineering and he laughed at the instructions and said you'd likely kill yourself or cause other permeant harm to your lab and body if you attempted the instructions. He had a similar response when I asked it to give me steps for synthesizing other illicit but less dangerous organic compounds.

I'm reminded of the need to supply AI with certified, authoritative information.

Piss poor algorithms operating on crappy data have always produced bad outcomes.

One would have thought we would have at least learned that by now.

---

Garbage In Garbage Out : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out

a.k.a.

Shit In. Shit Out. : <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shit In. Shi...>

SISO : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=siso

Yes, yes they will. They appear to demonstrate authority. They do not merely open the door to a range of information which can face recognizable human scrutiny, traction for critical thought. ChatGPT minimizes the “attack surface” for human evaluation. This is not something we should optimize. It is unknown and potentially dangerous.

Dissenting information is vital to the health of a society. Humans were not meant to drink from a single fountain of “truth,” their herd tendencies and response to social proof vastly outweigh rigor in decisions.