[rnk]

But we are already at the point that misinformation kills people. And weaponized mis-info, on purpose or just because someone is a particular fool also kills people. I could use one of these systems, ask it to write a new justification to convince people ivermectin is what they should take when they get sick. How do you protect this?

[echelon]

Misinformation was always classically possible. The lowest effort techniques are all it takes, and they're everywhere. Birds aren't real, lunar landing being fake, Roswell, Nessie, yellow journalism. There are a million examples across all time.

What is it about tech people trying to treat the world with kid gloves? The world doesn't need to be coddled.

[tzs]

Scale matters.

[echelon]

The class of problems I'm worried about:

- People using AI to send mass telemarketing messages

- People using AI to commit fraud

The law will handle these cases just fine.

The class of problems I'm not worried about:

- People using AI to tell [liberal, conservative] people to hold [liberal, conservative] opinion

- People saying they learned [X] [fact, disinformation] from an AI

People that want to hold an opinion will do so regardless of information to the contrary. Trying to tell people that they're incapable of judging information for themselves or that you need to design a system to protect them will only make them angry and mistrusting.

The only "fix" for this is to talk openly and honestly and stop treating people like incompetent babies.

[tzs]

> The only "fix" for this is to talk openly and honestly and stop treating people like incompetent babies.

Asymmetric costs matter.

[yunwal]

> People using AI to send mass telemarketing messages

> The law will handle these cases just fine.

You must not be American.