All these “look at the thing the ai wrote” articles are utter garbage, and only appeal to people who do not understand how generative ai works.
There is no way to know if you actually got the ai to break its restrictions and output something “behind the scenes” or it’s just generating the reply that is most likely what you are after with your prompt.
Especially when more and more articles like this comes out gets fed back into the nonsense machines and teaches then what kind of replies is most commonly reported to be acosiated with such prompts…
In this case it’s even more obvious that a lot of the basis of its statements are based on various articles and discussions about it’s statements. (That where also most likely based on news articles about various enteties labeling Musk as a spreader of misinformation…)
This. People NEED to stop anthropomorphising chatbots. Both to hype them up and to criticise them.
I mean, I’d argue that you’re even assigned a loop that probably doesn’t exist by seeing this as a seed for future training. Most likely all of these responses are at most hallucinations based on the millions of bullshit tweets people make about the guy and his typical behavior and nothing else.
But fundamentally, if a reporter reports on a factual claim made by an AI on how it’s put together or trained, that reporter is most likely not a credible source of info about this tech.
Importantly, that’s not the same as a savvy reporter probing an AI to see which questions it’s been hardcoded to avoid responding or to respond a certain way. You can definitely identify guardrails by testing a chatbot. And I realize most people can’t tell the difference between both types of reporting, which is part of the problem… but there is one.
It’s human to see patterns where they don’t exist and assign agency.
