Swedish PM Under Fire For Using AI In Role 26
Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has come under fire after admitting that he frequently uses AI tools like ChatGPT for second opinions on political matters. The Guardian reports: ... Kristersson, whose Moderate party leads Sweden's center-right coalition government, said he used tools including ChatGPT and the French service LeChat. His colleagues also used AI in their daily work, he said. Kristersson told the Swedish business newspaper Dagens industri: "I use it myself quite often. If for nothing else than for a second opinion. What have others done? And should we think the complete opposite? Those types of questions."
Tech experts, however, have raised concerns about politicians using AI tools in such a way, and the Aftonbladet newspaper accused Kristersson in a editorial of having "fallen for the oligarchs' AI psychosis." Kristersson's spokesperson, Tom Samuelsson, later said the prime minister did not take risks in his use of AI. "Naturally it is not security sensitive information that ends up there. It is used more as a ballpark," he said.
But Virginia Dignum, a professor of responsible artificial intelligence at Umea University, said AI was not capable of giving a meaningful opinion on political ideas, and that it simply reflects the views of those who built it. "The more he relies on AI for simple things, the bigger the risk of an overconfidence in the system. It is a slippery slope," she told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper. "We must demand that reliability can be guaranteed. We didn't vote for ChatGPT."
Tech experts, however, have raised concerns about politicians using AI tools in such a way, and the Aftonbladet newspaper accused Kristersson in a editorial of having "fallen for the oligarchs' AI psychosis." Kristersson's spokesperson, Tom Samuelsson, later said the prime minister did not take risks in his use of AI. "Naturally it is not security sensitive information that ends up there. It is used more as a ballpark," he said.
But Virginia Dignum, a professor of responsible artificial intelligence at Umea University, said AI was not capable of giving a meaningful opinion on political ideas, and that it simply reflects the views of those who built it. "The more he relies on AI for simple things, the bigger the risk of an overconfidence in the system. It is a slippery slope," she told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper. "We must demand that reliability can be guaranteed. We didn't vote for ChatGPT."
Whoever thought AI would be so awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But apparently, many people think nothing of having "AI" do the "thinking" for them. Does fit nicely with most people being idiots, but not knowing that. Als nicely explains why you got down-modded.
Unqualified for a political opinion (Score:2)
"But Virginia Dignum, a professor of responsible artificial intelligence at Umea University, said AI was not capable of giving a meaningful opinion on political ideas, and that it simply reflects the views of those who built it. "The more he relies on AI for simple things, the bigger the risk of an overconfidence in the system. It is a slippery slope," she told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper. "We must demand that reliability can be guaranteed. We didn't vote for ChatGPT.""
It begs the question, if the AI agree
Re: (Score:2)
It begs the question, if the AI agrees with an expert on topics A,B,C,D,E, .. Z and other experts say the "AI was not capable of giving a meaningful opinion on political ideas,"; which one is right and which one has a possible valid opinion?
Agreeing without understanding is easy and meaningless. It does in no way indicate understanding or being capable of giving a meaningful opinion. What matters is disagreeing with rationale and the quality of the rationale is what makes all the difference.
Incidentally, you calling expert statements "opinions" already makes it clear you have no clue what this is really about. Also, opinions cannot be "valid" or "invalid". Maybe you need to look what an "opinion" is?
So, why's this wrong? (Score:2, Troll)
Lots of reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
That's before we talk about AI hallucinations and wildly inaccurate information you can get from them.
The only good reason to use AI to run a country is if you're Donald Trump and that's because it couldn't possibly get worse at that point
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Essentially, most LLMs are "yes men" in a box, because that maximizes engagement. That maximizes engagement for the stupid, that is. Smart people turn away in disgust. Hence "valuing the opinion" of an LLMs is a sure indicator for a person that is not smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a recent experience with someone I know from an (ironically) science-based club I belong to who was gushing to me about how wonderful ChatGPT is. He uses it all the time, you see. I explained the many problems with its output and he replied "It always seems accurate to me." After taking a few moments to pin him down about this it transpired that he had never, ever checked the accuracy of the stuff it was serving up.
Re: (Score:2)
Playing around with copilot and chatgpt:
I'm always sad that I can't sort for lowest price by quantity rather than just lowest price.
So ask it to find me the cheapest blue paper shop towels by sheet or square foot:
Suggests 5 different options, but included a $20 single roll from Walmart. Wasted some time figuring out that it wasn't a multipack.
Searching some myself, got a set of 6 rolls for just over $2 a roll.
I ask it why it included such an expensive outlier. "I wanted to give you something to contrast i
I use DuckDuckgo AI anon chat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use chat bots but I'm cool with the Swedish PM using it for simple questions. Though for politics one must be wary of biases in the model (e.g. Zuckerberg voluntarily biasing Llama to right wing).
'Second opinion' (Score:2)
Rulers have long had advisers who offer alternative ideas and insights, allowing the ruler, on a good day at least, to come to a better decision. Having that role ALSO done by AI potentially increases the range of options the ruler will be deciding from. Of course this may challenge the comfortable ideas that the ruler has - win. The worst case scenario is that the AI consistently offers a particular partisan line. So might any other advisor. Not a big deal.
Whilst it is attractive to assume that our leaders
Want to admit your a visionless bureaucrat? (Score:1)
reflects the views of those who built it (Score:2)
Surely it just reflects the views of the training data? This could be the views of those who built it. If itâ(TM)s been given carte blanche to the internet, it reflects whatever bias is found on the internet.
Re: reflects the views of those who built it (Score:2)
Well, actually it reflects the views of those who voted for him (pardon, them) - i.e. woke robots.
Chats are public? (Score:1)
Not as bad as it may seem (Score:2)
He said he uses it for reflections, and that's not a bad thing.
If you're otherwise a sane person who don't actually believe "A.i." is alive and superior or "god like" then you'll be just fine.
I kinda smiled when he admitted he also used chatgpt (like most of the entire population, the no#1 app in Sweden is BankID, the second one is Swish, both used for monetary transactions, the 3rd one is ChatGPT), why would he deviate from the norm?
I mean, it's kinda sweet that he is so open about his life that he would o
say what (Score:1)
fallen for the oligarchs' AI psychosis (Score:2)
Hundreds of millions have fallen for the oligarchs' AI psychosis. At least this PM is representative of many of nation's citizens that are suffering from the same disease. I hope one day we find a cure before it is too late.