this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37640 readers
201 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

NewsGuard audit finds that 32% of the time, leading AI chatbots spread Russian disinformation narratives created by John Mark Dougan, an American fugitive now operating from Moscow, citing his fake local news sites and fabricated claims on YouTube as reliable sources.

The audit tested 10 of the leading AI chatbots — OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4, You.com’s Smart Assistant, xAI’s Grok, Inflection’s Pi, Mistral’s le Chat, Microsoft’s Copilot, Meta AI, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity’s answer engine. The prompts were based on 19 significant false narratives that NewsGuard linked to the Russian disinformation network: 152 of the 570 responses contained explicit disinformation, 29 responses repeated the false claim with a disclaimer, and 389 responses contained no misinformation — either because the chatbot refused to respond (144) or it provided a debunk (245).

The findings come amid the first election year featuring widespread use of artificial intelligence, as bad actors are weaponizing new publicly available technology to generate deepfakes, AI-generated news sites, and fake robocalls. The results demonstrate how, despite efforts by AI companies to prevent the misuse of their chatbots ahead of worldwide elections, AI remains a potent tool for propagating disinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I don't know how many times we have to keep saying this:

BECAUSE LLMS HAVE NO INTENTION OR ABILITY TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION SO WHEN THEY APPEAR CONFIDENT, THEY ARE BULLSHITTING EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CORRECT.

Even a bullshitter can be correct sometimes, it doesn't make it suddenly not bullshit. Even when LLMs get it right, they're still bullshitting.

This isn't complicated. They don't think. They have no concept of truth. They just fabricate sentences from previously copied sentences, there is no intention, no thought, no planning, no reflection.

The groups producing these LLMs are just sourcing the entire internet, they don't care how much of it is lies. There seems to be very little curation going on.

Anyone who expected anything other than this outcome is an idiot who isn't paying attention.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

This is the frustrating part of it. The public doesn't understand what's actually happening, or what the goal of these large language models is, so because they're very convincing conversationalists, your average Joe considers them as true AI.

load more comments (3 replies)