AI Chatbots Are Putting Clueless Hikers in Danger, Search and Rescue Groups Warn
AI Chatbots Are Putting Clueless Hikers in Danger, Search and Rescue Groups Warn
Hikers are ending up in need of rescue because they're following the questionable recommendations of an AI chatbot.
It turns out that to plan their ill-fated expedition, the hikers heedlessly followed the advice given to them by Google Maps and the AI chatbot ChatGPT.
Okay?
Proceeds to not elaborate even remotely further on what ChatGPT told them
Oh yeah, super high quality journalism here folks. This entire articles premise boils down to "They asked something (unknown what) of ChatGPT related to this hike, and they got something (unknown what) back, but we're gonna go ahead and mention it and write a whole article about it"
For all I know, they just asked gippity for tips on good ideas for trail mix, who knows! We sure never will because this entire article doesnt actually bother to tell us
FFS, can we please downvote this low quality garbage pretending to be journalism? Give me facts people
Pee is stored in the balls
Do women store pee in their balls, too? Does this have anything to do with them wanting pockets?
AI isn't putting people's lives in danger here. It's the people's ignorance that puts their lives in danger. This is the same as when car navigation apps became available and people turned and sank their cars into creeks and harbors because they trusted their navi provider's faulty map data more than their own eyes and common sense. The problem is "cluesless people." If you are just trusting all the info chatGPT finds for you, you are the problem. We can't just outsource the attribution of blame for all idiotic actions to so-called AI.
I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses - and whether it is adequately presenting the risks or uncertainty associated with its suggestions.
An actual intelligent (and empathetic) thing should point out risks when asked such a question, or maybe have the humility to say "that's not my area of expertise and it is dangerous, the best way for you to get up that mountain is to first speak to a real expert". Unless the AI presents itself as "artificial stupidity" then I don't have a problem.
When i know I'm talking outwith my expertise I'd try to make it clear that I'm using my mouth at the other end.
Of course, I didn't see the actual advice that was given, maybe it was adequately qualified, but if a person said "just walk up there, go this way and that way, turn north at the big rock and follow the ridge" - and didn't qualify it by asking about experience in mountain conditions or mentioning risks, I'd call that person stupid negligent or worse. So I'd apply the same to anything presenting itself as "intelligent" which, frankly, I find to be a bit of a red flag when a human claims it too.
I don't think GPS is at fault, insofar as it claims to be a positioning system, it doesn't try to use hyped up bullshit terms like "intelligence".
But "sat nav" is more culpable as it's claiming to "navigate" which to my understanding should involve sensitivity to the terrain, conditions and the traveller/vehicle. If it can't do that then the satnav is also partly at fault - for overselling its capabilities - that's in addition to the driver who also bears ultimate responsibility.
I'm not saying that the people weren't idiots, and they take the ultimate blame. But everyone has a first time experience with mountains and needs to learn as well as build experience. If AI is going to pretend like it is a teacher or adviser then I think it should be sensitive to noobs like a real teacher would.
I can agree with a lot here but I also have to admit that I fell at the first hurdle.
I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses
Hard disagree here. If you're using so-called AI today, the responsibility to scrutinize everything it throws at you is yours. No matter how neatly packaged or convincingly worded it is. There is a failure rate - the news is full of stories. You're setting off to climb a mountain. You cannot trust the 1s and 0s.
As for the sat nav culpability, Google gives elevation information when they have it. I would not be surprised when we found out that was the case for these dumdums. It's a bit like reading an old paper map though. If you don't know more saturated colors mean higher elevation you might have set off 30 years ago to climb this 12k ft mountain in flip-flops as well. I don't think we should blame sat navs for the ignorance here either. Unless they hide that info maliciously.
Would this qualify them for Darwin Awards?
For the Germans here, I recommend "In höchster Not" in the ARD Mediathek, a docu series about the mountain rescue people. It shows how fast things can go wrong on the mountain and what is needed to get people back out.
And yes, apps for "easy tours" are partly to blame.