ChatGPT: criminal usecases

[astyle]

When I was younger; if you did not like something you didn't engage with it. You went off and did your own thing.

There, I disagree... I'd say it's about encountering information that confirms or debunks your own thinking. One acts based on confirmation or debunking of their thinking. As an example:

On TV, there's an announcement that there's tons of tech jobs available. Person A wants a tech job, wanted it for awhile, and suddenly sees that announcement. The announcement confirms A's thinking that there's gotta be tech jobs available, and pretty easily. That info (from TV) is what spurs A into action, A applies to lots of jobs, hoping to land one.

But... why exactly is the announcement even on TV? Why TV and not a closer source of information? That's because there's someone (B) with an agenda. Because B has an agenda, B will put an announcement out on TV, and not more locally. B is in control of actual information about available jobs, and gets to decide how to look for people to fill those jobs. And yes, it will be B taking initiative and making decisions about where information is, and what information.

Point being, ChatGPT doesn't have agency like person B to make decisions about what information is available, where, and to who. ChatGPT only spits out information it has on hand.

Makes one rethink the idea about conversations being a turn-based thing...

 

[driker]

Why not?

As for counter-examples, I'd like to offer up state-funded health care, police (for public safety), public education (as opposed to home schooling or private schools), and food safety regulations. Heck, even building codes are something the government is supposed to enforce. And somebody needs to organize all that, and then convince the leaders to pony up the money to pay for it.

It is not the governmnet's job to provide people healthcare. Healthcare is a right in the same way I have the right to bear arms. No one has the right to prevent me from doing so but it does not mean I have the right to force others to provide it for me. Homeschooling and private schools provide the same, if not a better, education than most public schools. Food safety and building code regulations are a way to protect one individual from another. Although the regulations on them get out of hand sometimes. One example is a guy I know has been waiting 3 weeks for his cities building code inspector to approve him putting stairs on the front of his building after the stairs he previously had were damaged by weather. Three weeks to get approval to put stairs on the front of your house is insane. That should not even need approval.

Inventing chemical weapons to have reasons to produce antidotes for them makes no sense whatsoever.

It does if your enemies have the same ability to invent the same chemical weapons and use them against you. It's never a bad thing to be forward looking for self defense. If I know North Korea has the ability to create a bioweapon, for example, and I choose not to study what they could make so that I could defend myself against those possibilities then I deserve what I get by not being prepared. Could those chemical weapons be used in a way to harm others if that information was in the wrong hands? Of course. Which is why it's better to think up new things and prepare for the worst.

They cannot, they have.
But creating 40k new ones is only interesting for overloading the system.

40k new ones, if nothing else, is more information. More information is never a bad thing.

That's what countries for, primarily protecting their people.
That's why e.g. drugs and weapons are banned in most countries,
to protect the people.
In the contrary to e.g. USA, we in Europe can move freely on any street,
and not worry about being shot by gangsters or paranoid policemen,
because they always need to suggest anyone is a heavily armed psychopath, directly open fire with automatic weapons.

Since we've learned first allowing things, than struggle to regulate or even ban them afterwards, when we saw the downsides,
lead to most causes of the problems we have to day.
It's way better to do it the other way around:
First prove the harm done is reasonable for the benefits,
then define regulations, then allow it.
Insofar I find Italy's and France's attidude very exemplary, and mature.

Sorry,
but I start to think you're an artificial intelligence yourself.
Are you, or can you prove you're not?

I've never had to worry about being shit by gangsters or police men walking the streets. That is overblown by the media. Rights are not bestowed by the government. You should have a right to act in any way you see fight right up until you are harming someone else - "My right to swing my fist end where your nose begins." is the old saying. From what I've heard France smells like urine. Italy hasn't been "exemplary" at anything other than criminal organization and pasta since the roman empire fell.

 

[driker]

There, I disagree... I'd say it's about encountering information that confirms or debunks your own thinking. One acts based on confirmation or debunking of their thinking. As an example:

On TV, there's an announcement that there's tons of tech jobs available. Person A wants a tech job, wanted it for awhile, and suddenly sees that announcement. The announcement confirms A's thinking that there's gotta be tech jobs available, and pretty easily. That info (from TV) is what spurs A into action, A applies to lots of jobs, hoping to land one.

But... why exactly is the announcement even on TV? Why TV and not a closer source of information? That's because there's someone (B) with an agenda. Because B has an agenda, B will put an announcement out on TV, and not more locally. B is in control of actual information about available jobs, and gets to decide how to look for people to fill those jobs. And yes, it will be B taking initiative and making decisions about where information is, and what information.

Point being, ChatGPT doesn't have agency like person B to make decisions about what information is available, where, and to who. ChatGPT only spits out information it has on hand.

Makes one rethink the idea about conversations being a turn-based thing...

This is why it's up to individuals to stay informed. TV was, at one point, just as radio was, the best way to reach the masses. We now have the internet. All of human knowledge at your fingertips. If someone is unwilling to verify what they hear then the results of that are their own burden. ChatGPT is good for specific tasks. It provided both good and bad information at times. This falls under the umbrella of doing your own research. Everything is biased. It's why when I was told to avoid rt news on here. rt is no less biased than any other news that you'll read. Even statistics on any topic can be displayed in a manner that backs any agenda.

 

[astyle]

It does if your enemies have the same ability to invent the same chemical weapons and use them against you. It's never a bad thing to be forward looking for self defense. If I know North Korea has the ability to create a bioweapon, for example, and I choose not to study what they could make so that I could defend myself against those possibilities then I deserve what I get by not being prepared. Could those chemical weapons be used in a way to harm others if that information was in the wrong hands? Of course. Which is why it's better to think up new things and prepare for the worst.

You realize that this is the official line of Uncle Sam and CIA? Yep, you walked right into that one.

I've never had to worry about being shit by gangsters or police men walking the streets. That is overblown by the media. Rights are not bestowed by the government. You should have a right to act in any way you see fight right up until you are harming someone else - "My right to swing my fist end where your nose begins." is the old saying.

You only have any 'rights' because that's enforced by governments. And the rest of humanity has a right to not being beaten up by your fist. That's why the governments have such a thing as police.

If health care is a 'right' in the same sense that ability to bear arms is a 'right'... oh, man, only in US would that even be a conversation.

 

[driker]

You realize that this is the official line of Uncle Sam and CIA? Yep, you walked right into that one.

I do realize and this is one of those rare occasions that they are both correct.

You only have any 'rights' because that's enforced by governments. And the rest of humanity has a right to not being beaten up by your fist. That's why the governments have such a thing as police.

My rights are enforced by my willingness to defend them through force if necessary. I do not swing my fists beyond the point where my right to swing my fist ends. Police need not be involved. That is the difference between civilized people and the rest. One understands that they are not to infringe on others rights and has the self control to live within those bounds and one doesn't have the ability of self control. If a country is made up entirely of individuals who only act appropriately because a government and a police force are there to enforce it then it's made up of uncivilized people. Uncivilized people here either end up taking a forever nap or end up in cages. No different than any other animal.

 

[astyle]

My rights are enforced by my willingness to defend them through force if necessary. I do not swing my fists beyond the point where my right to swing my fist ends. Police need not be involved. That is the difference between civilized people and the rest. One understands that they are not to infringe on others rights and has the self control to live within those bounds and one doesn't have the ability of self control. If a country is made up entirely of individuals who only act appropriately because a government and a police force are there to enforce it then it's made up of uncivilized people. Uncivilized people here either end up taking a forever nap or end up in cages. No different than any other animal.

You have just described mainstream US to a T.

But at this point, I'm hoping a mod closes this thread, because it's getting too political.... definitely too political for my tastes, especially with un-informed disrespect for international community that frequents these Forums. Calling ppl 'uncivilized' is a distasteful idea from Roman times, and has been the cause of plenty of bloodshed. Unfortunately, that idea is alive and well even today, even with efforts to put it to bed.

 

[driker]

You have just described mainstream US to a T.

But at this point, I'm hoping a mod closes this thread, because it's getting too political.... definitely too political for my tastes, especially with un-informed disrespect for international community that frequents these Forums. Calling ppl 'uncivilized' is a distasteful idea from Roman times, and has been the cause of plenty of bloodshed. Unfortunately, that idea is alive and well even today, even with efforts to put it to bed.

I am aware I've described mainstream USA. I am American, after all. Time and time again I see the USA insulted and no one bats an eye but the moment other countries way of doing things gets questioned it seems like theirs always a call to end the conversation.

It goes back well before the Roman Empire. All thought patterns have been the cause of bloodshed. It has been the case in all of human history and will continue to be the case until the end of time. The point was that those who cannot abide by even the basic rules a civilized society act in an uncivilized manner.

 

[zirias@]

My rights are enforced by my willingness to defend them through force if necessary.

This is ridiculous. It means "weak" people have no rights cause they're unable to defend them. There are good reasons applying force is restricted to the state (represented by its executive bodies like the police). "Defending rights through force" must be done by someone, but only helps the right of all when this someone acts with a mandate of one of these bodies (as a soldier, police officer, ...).

And in the light of that, the rest of that paragraph is just insulting.

 

[driker]

This is ridiculous. It means "weak" people have no rights cause they're unable to defend them. There are good reasons applying force is restricted to the state (represented by its executive bodies like the police). "Defending rights through force" must be done by someone, but only helps the right of all when this someone acts with a mandate of one of these bodies (as a soldier, police officer, ...).

And in the light of that, the rest of that paragraph is just insulting.

No, anyone can defend themselves. Yes, police do exist to assist in that but in the USA people also have the right to self defense. Many people carry a form of self defense. Whether it be pepper spray, a knife or the great equalizer. Police take time to show up. I wouldn't sit back and allow myself to be harmed until the police come. Neither should anyone else.

How is it insulting to say that people who commit crimes and choose to infringe on others rights should be removed from the rest of society?

 

[zirias@]

astyle, I wouldn't call that "mainstream US" but rather mainstream of a certain political movement, and I won't go into further details about that. I just reserve the right to strictly reject these views.

 

[sidetone]

Like mentioned here before, technology can be used for good or bad.

One example is the loud horn speaker in the 20th century, where the inventor meant no harm in it, then, people used it on their way to become dictators, by being able to communicate with larger groups. The inventor was sad that this has happened.

Another example is the cotton gin, how Eli Whitney hated slavery, but his invention inadvertently gave rise to a desire for more cotton production. His intent was to reduce the practice of slavery, but it did the opposite.

 

[astyle]

astyle, I wouldn't call that "mainstream US" but rather mainstream of a certain political movement, and I won't go into further details about that. I just reserve the right to strictly reject these views.

Uhhh... I live on West Coast of US, so I have a seat where I can see that circus reasonably close up.

How is it insulting to say that people who commit crimes and choose to infringe on others rights should be removed from the rest of society?

The insulting part is not asking 'Why'. Just take a quick look, and come out with guns blazing. What happened to 'Ask questions first, shoot later' ?

Popular sentiment in Asia is to realize that everyone has reasons to do what they do. Only US practices 'Shoot first, ask questions later, if at all'.

 

[driker]

I wouldn't call that "mainstream US" but rather mainstream of a certain political movement, and I won't go into further details about that. I just reserve the right to strictly reject these views.

I have no political affiliation. Just go strictly off of logic and reason instead of reacting through emotion.

Like mentioned here before, technology can be used for good or bad.

One example is the loud horn speaker in the 20th century, where the inventor meant no harm in it, then, people used it on their way to become dictators, by being able to communicate with larger groups. The inventor was sad that this has happened.

Another example is the cotton gin is an example, how the Eli Whitney hates slavery, but his invention inadvertently gave rise to a need for cotton.

You're right. Anything can be. Both of those tools advanced humanity. There we're unforeseen consequences to their creation but if we forego every technology that can have a negative impact then we'd never get anywhere.

 

[getopt]

Just go strictly off of logic and reason instead of reacting through emotion.

That is what Large Language Models are doing. Reasoning without emotions. The question at this stage is: What kind of ethics are needed when doing so?

 

[driker]

Uhhh... I live on West Coast of US, so I have a seat where I can see that circus reasonably close up.

The west coast (mainly looking at Cali), and the east coast (Looking largely at NY here), are major parts of the problems.

The insulting part is not asking 'Why'. Just take a quick look, and come out with guns blazing. What happened to 'Ask questions first, shoot later' ?

Popular sentiment in Asia is to realize that everyone has reasons to do what they do. Only US practices 'Shoot first, ask questions later, if at all'.

It may be why Asia is home to communism? That's what happens when you ask "but why are you taking all of my rights away and starving me" instead of defending yourself. I don't know anyone who isn't a criminal or are acting in self defense that comes out "guns blazing".

That is what Large Language Models are doing. Reasoning without emotions. The question at this stage is: What kind of ethics are needed when doing so?

What types of ethics are required? You put something in and see what it spits out. You verify if the information it spits out is good. If so keep it. If not discard it. AI is a tool. Look at cars for example. Cars kill people and are used in crimes every day. Do we continue to use them without judging whether it's ethical to use a car because they cause harm to people?

 

[sidetone]

Ziras needed more of the quote. Bc it looks like he responded to implication, when the other part of the quote gets it.

My rights are enforced by my willingness to defend them through force if necessary.

Police need not be involved. That is the difference between civilized people and the rest.

One understands that they are not to infringe on others rights and has the self control to live within those bounds and one doesn't have the ability of self control.

A lot of people operate this way, as how they behave. We do need police and law and order though. In a later part you said that.

Yes, police do exist to assist in that but in the USA people also have the right to self defense

We do have to protect ourselves in an instant. Normally, we're good, but there are unforseen events and bad actors. Police do take time to show up, and we need self defense. A responsible and not overdone response to threats.

A knife can be dangerous to the person holding it, if the other person knows what they're doing. A gun as a last resort, but I wouldn't get into a fist fight if I had a gun on me.

Some bad actors are terrified of police. Just knowing they'll be around, scares them off quickly.

 

[astyle]

I don't know anyone who isn't a criminal or are acting in self defense that comes out "guns blazing".

Yes, you do, and you fund it: US Army.

 

[zirias@]

I have no political affiliation.

The west coast (mainly looking at Cali), and the east coast (Looking largely at NY here), are major parts of the problems.

Thanks, no further questions. We're leaving the bounds of "off-topic" for this forum anyways.

 

[driker]

Yes, you do, and you fund it: US Army.

I don't have much of a choice in this one.

 

[astyle]

Police do take time to show up, and we need self defense. A responsible and not overdone response to threats.

In Nashville, TN, cops showed up pretty quick and shot down the assailant...

 

[sidetone]

That is what Large Language Models are doing. Reasoning without emotions. The question at this stage is: What kind of ethics are needed when doing so?

Mathematical reasoning is required, even for those who don't see it. Still, it's a form of logical thinking. In my experience, doing basic math helps clear up clouded thinking.

Our emotions, especially anger, can get in the way of our ethics, principles, conscious, empathy (another entity related to emotion that says who we are or our principles can be based off of) and otherwise hardline often correct way of doing things right. We haven't thought things out, and there's complexities that can happen on the spot.

 

[driker]

In Nashville, TN, cops showed up pretty quick and shot down the assailant...

That's a good thing. Other times they've sat around waiting for orders to go in or, as is usually the case, have to travel to the location. Typical response time is 10-15 minutes if I remember correctly.

 

[zirias@]

Other times they've sat around waiting for orders to go in

Ok, seriously? I mean, you really want to make a point for carrying weapons from the one recent incident where this "famously" happened? Think twice?

But this discussion is missing the point anyways. Of course, faced with a real and dangerous threat, you're always allowed to take defensive action. One thing that's very different e.g. in Germany is just: this action must be "reasonable" (to counteract the threat). Just shooting someone is NOT "reasonable" in almost every case. And then, you'd violate the law.

 

[driker]

Ok, seriously? I mean, you really want to make a point for carrying weapons from the one recent incident where this "famously" happened? Think twice?

But this discussion is missing the point anyways. Of course, faced with a real and dangerous threat, you're always allowed to take defensive action. One thing that's very different e.g. in Germany is just: this action must be "reasonable" (to counteract the threat). Just shooting someone is NOT "reasonable" in almost every case. And then, you'd violate the law.

I did not bring that incident up. If you have an issue with it being brought up maybe question the person who did.

Yes, you must act with reasonable force here as well. You cannot use deadly force if you are not in serious danger. People have been imprisoned before for overuse of force in self defense. I'm unsure where you've heard that you can use deadly force at any time in self defense but the sources that provided you with that information is wrong. I'm honestly surprised someone from a Germany is against people owning guns after what happened the last time gun rights were stripped from people there.

 

[zirias@]

I'm unsure where you've heard

What I've "heard" (aka read in trustworthy publications) is that legislature concerning what's "reasonable" for immediate defense differs a lot between states, and there are some where even shooting a person just accidentally trespassing your property without even asking any questions is legal. So, you tell me this is not true? Do you have sources to prove that?

I'm honestly surprised someone from a Germany is against people owning guns after what happened the last time gun rights were stripped from people there.

Leaves me puzzled what you think you heard about Germany? What do you think "happened"?