Recently, Jim Buckley, an elderly businessman, was left stunned after an AI chatbot named ChatGPT wrongly labeled him as the IRA terrorist responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Baltic Exchange in London.
The 79-year-old venture was director of the maritime industry’s organisation at the time of the attack and was eager to test out the ChatGPT, after his 14-year-old grandson had started using it. However, upon entering his name, occupation and ‘IRA bombing’ into ChatGPT, the results stated that he was held responsible for the bombing.
ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that is trained using a machine learning technique referred to as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This enables the chatbot to generate responses that sound like that of a human being, and are dependent on a given prompt.
The bot alleged that Mr. Buckley was an Irish republican parliamentary and a member of the IRA, who carried out the attack on the Baltic Exchange which killed three people and injured 91. In 1993, he was sentenced to life in prison on all charges even though he insisted that he was only the CEO of the mentioned organisation.
He was adamant that such an error can be dangerous, with it proving the importance of cautinousness when it comes to the reliance on AI.
OpenAI, the company that developed the ChatGPT program, has yet to provide any official comment. The company is a research laboratory that focuses on artificial intelligence, and over the past few years it has been makings strides in the development of this technology. OpenAI develops technologies such as two-storey agents and language models, which have both been created to improve the accuracy of the results.
Mr. Buckley, recognized for his role as the CEO of the Baltic Exchange, experienced firsthand the effects of the attack that took place 28 years ago. He was a well respected figure in the business world and was highly regarded by his employers.
It is clear that while AI chatbots can be helpful, they should not replace humans as they sometimes make mistakes due to the nature of the technology. As a result, it is often better to confirm that the results are accurate before making any decisions.
