MS Paint isn’t marketed or treated as a source of truth. LLMs are.

Breaking an NDA (allegedly) is civil, not criminal

Many EU countries have their own different laws about this stuff. The GDPR likely does not apply here because of the exception for “purely personal and household activities”, article 2(2)©.

You’re going to love Cyberchef

They can make it so much harder to do that, to the point where almost everyone just gives up.

If you’re upset that your hacked-to-bits, rooted, unlocked and/or unencrypted device is failing checks: I’d say, tough luck. Until we can create provably untampered app-containers, that level of access genuinely breaks TOS on apps and regulations on handling personal data.

Hard disagree. If you own the device, you should be in full control of what’s going on. Sure, attestation can give some extra security, but that decision should be up to the user. Everything else is just excuses for user hostile DRM: platforms levaraging technology to secure their own profit margin against the interests of user.

Websites do not have access to your IMEI. That’s only a concern when you use the app.

Nerve gas also doesn’t have morals. It just kills people in a horrible way. Does that mean that we shouldn’t study their effects or debate whether they should be used?

At least when you drop a bomb there is no doubt about your intent to kill. But if you use a chatbot to defraud consumers, you have plausible deniability.

That was only my first point. In my second and third point I explained why education is not going to solve this problem. That’s like poisoning their candy and then educating them about it.

I’ll add to say that these AI applications only work because people trust their output. If everyone saw them for the cheap party tricks that they are, they wouldn’t be used in the first place.

The fact that they lack sentience or intentions doesn’t change the fact that the output is false and deceptive. When I’m being defrauded, I don’t care if the perpetrator hides behind an LLM or not.

It’s rather difficult to get people who are willing to lie and commit fraud for you. And even if you do, it will leave evidence.

As this article shows, AIs are the ideal mob henchmen because they will do the most heinous stuff while creating plausible deniability for their tech bro boss. So no, AI is not “just like most people”.

Ok, so your point is that people who interact with these AI systems will know that it can’t be trusted and that will alleviate the negative consequences of its misinformation.

The problems with that argument are many:

• The vast majority of people are not AI experts and do in fact have a lot of trust in such systems

• Even people who do know often have no other choice. You don’t get to talk to a human, it’s this chatbot or nothing. And that’s assuming the AI slop is even labelled as such.

• Even knowing that the information can be misleading does not help much. If you sell me a bowl of candy and tell me that 10% of them are poisoned, I’m still going to demand non-poisoned candy. The fact that people can no longer rely on accurate information should be unacceptable.

Congratulations, you are technically correct. But does this have any relevance for the point of this article? They clearly show that LLMs will provide false and misleading information when that brings them closer to their goal.

Isn’t it wrong if an AI is making shit up to sell you bad products while the tech bros who built it are untouchable as long as they never specifically instructed the bot to lie?

That’s the main reason why AIs are used to make decisions. Not because they are any better than humans, but because they provide plausible deniability. It’s called an accountability sink.