ChatGPT has falsely accused a law professor of sexually harassing one of his students in a case that has highlighted the dangers of AI defaming people. Jonathan Turley, of George Washington University, said the allegation was made by the chatbot during research done by another professor. The AI claimed he made sexually suggestive comments and attempted to touch a student during a class trip to Alaska. It cited an article from The Washington Post as evidence. Turley wrote in USA Today: "It was a surprise to me since I have never gone to Alaska with students, The Post never published such an article, and I have never been accused of sexual harassment or assault by anyone.

Back in July of 2020, I published a group post entitled “Philosophers on GPT-3.” At the time, most readers of Daily Nous had not heard of GPT-3 and had no idea what a large language model (LLM) is. How times have changed. Over the past few months, with the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Bing’s AI Chatbot “Sydney” (which we learned a few hours after this post originally went up has “secretly” been running GPT-4) (as well as Meta’s Galactica—pulled after 3 days—and Google’s Bard—currently available only to a small number of people), talk of LLMs has exploded. It seemed like a good time for a follow-up to that original post, one in which philosophers could get together to explore the various issues and questions raised by these next-generation large language models. Here it is. As with the previous post on GPT-3, this edition of Philosophers On was put together by guest editor by Annette Zimmermann. I am very grateful to her for all of the work she put into developing and editing this post. Philosophers On is an occasional series of group posts on issues of current interest, with the aim of showing what the careful thinking characteristic of philosophers (and occasionally scholars in related fields) can bring to popular ongoing conversations. The contributions that the authors make to these posts are not fully worked out position papers, but rather brief thoughts that can serve as prompts for further reflection and discussion. The contributors to this installment of “Philosophers On” are: Abeba Birhane (Senior Fellow in Trustworthy AI at Mozilla Foundation & Adjunct Lecturer, School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland), Atoosa Kasirzadeh (Chancellor’s Fellow and tenure-track assistant professor in Philosophy & Director of Research at the Centre for Technomoral Futures, University of Edinburgh), Fintan Mallory (Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of Oslo), Regina Rini (Associate Professor of Philosophy & Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Moral and Social Cognition), Eric Schwitzgebel (Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Riverside), Luke Stark (Assistant Professor of Information & Media Studies, Western University), Karina Vold (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Toronto & Associate Fellow, Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge), and Annette Zimmermann (Assistant..

Unlike food, medicine, and cars, we have yet to see clear regulations or laws to guide AI design in the US. Without standard guidelines, companies that design and develop ML models have historically worked off of their own perceptions of right and wrong. This is about to change. As the EU finalizes its AI Act and generative AI continues to rapidly evolve, we will see the artificial intelligence regulatory landscape shift from general, suggested frameworks to more permanent laws. The EU AI Act has spurred significant conversations among business leaders: How can we prepare for stricter AI regulations?

The tech world's hottest new toy may find itself in legal hot water as AI's tendency to invent news articles and events comes up against defamation laws. Can an AI model like ChatGPT even commit libel? Like so much surrounding the technology, it's unknown and unprecedented -- but upcoming legal challenges may change that. Defamation is broadly defined as publishing or saying damaging and untrue statements about someone. It's complex and nuanced legal territory that also differs widely across jurisdictions: a libel case in the U.S. is very different from one in the U.K., or in Australia -- the venue for today's drama.

I'm Mark Scott, POLITICO's chief technology correspondent, and after a week of vacation, I'm honestly struggling to get myself up and running this week. With that in mind, here's the pep song that has been keeping me going as I've written this week's newsletter. Warning: it'll get stuck in your mind. We'll tell you where to look for it. HERE'S MY PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE WEEK: let's cool the hype around OpenAI, Google's Bard and the sudden tsunami of so-called generative artificial intelligence use cases that have just popped up (looking at you, Pope in a puffer coat.)

Samsung employees have accidentally leaked confidential information while using ChatGPT, a language model that is designed to assist users in generating text. Specifically, the semiconductor division of Samsung allowed its engineers to use ChatGPT to check source code. However, according to a report by The Economist Korea, there have been at least three instances where employees unintentionally shared sensitive information with ChatGPT. Also read: You won't believe what NASA's Webb Space Telescope captured on Uranus! In one instance, an employee pasted confidential source code into the chat to check for errors. In another instance, an employee shared code with ChatGPT and requested optimization.

Over the last few months, AI chatbots have exploded in popularity off the surging success of OpenAI's revolutionary ChatGPT--which, amazingly, only burst onto the scene around December. But when Microsoft seized the opportunity to hitch its wagon to OpenAI's rising star for a steep $10 billion dollars, it chose to do so by introducing a GPT-4-powered chatbot under the guise of Bing, its swell-but-also-ran search engine, in a bid to upend Google's search dominance. Google quickly followed suit with its own homegrown Bard AI. Both are touted as experiments. And these "AI chatbots" are truly wondrous advancements--I've spent many nights with my kids joyously creating fantastic stuff-of-your-dreams artwork with Bing Chat's Dall-E integration and prompting sick raps about wizards who think lizards are the source of all magic, and seeing them come to life in mere moments with these fantastic tools.

We all know ChatGPT gets stuff wrong. While that can be amusing, it's less funny if ChatGPT is mistakenly identifies you as a criminal. And it's less funny still if you were in fact the person who originally uncovered the crime in question. Indeed, you might find it so unfunny, you decide to sue for defamation. Which is exactly what Brian Hood, a Melbourne Australia-based politician is doing.

A law professor has been falsely accused of sexually harassing a student in reputation-ruining misinformation shared by ChatGPT, it has been alleged. US criminal defence attorney, Jonathan Turley, has raised fears over the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) after being wrongly accused of unwanted sexual behaviour on a Alaska trip he never went on. To jump to this conclusion, it was claimed that ChatGPT relied on a cited Washington Post article that had never been written, quoting a statement that was never issued by the newspaper. The chatbot also believed that the'incident' took place while the professor was working in a faculty he had never been employed in. In a tweet, the George Washington University professor said: 'Yesterday, President Joe Biden declared that "it remains to be seen" whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) is "dangerous."

The AI software Stable Diffusion has a remarkable ability to turn text into images. When I asked the software to draw "Mickey Mouse in front of a McDonald's sign," for example, it generated the picture you see above. Stable Diffusion can do this because it was trained on hundreds of millions of example images harvested from across the web. Some of these images were in the public domain or had been published under permissive licenses such as Creative Commons. Many others were not--and the world's artists and photographers aren't happy about it.