Why does Mark Zuckerberg want his kids to use chatbots?

Peter Kafka: Welcome from the holidays, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke the story I desperately wanted to ask you. The meta-document told people building chatbots that “it's not acceptable to attract children to romantic or sensual conversations.”

That's a weird report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider that it has since revised the document and that its policy prohibits content that makes children sexual.

I have a lot of questions for you. But maybe we can start now: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots?

Katie Notopoulos: that It was Boncar report! I think Meta is looking at what companies like Charition.ai and Replika do. These companion chatbots are people sinking for hours and hours and spending real money. If you are a company like Meta, this seems like the next big thing to enjoy and socialize with consumer apps. You want people to spend a lot of time doing fun things with your app.

Of course, the question is, “Are these chatbots good?”

Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I want to reach this future question. But for another minute, stick to the is-it-good-for-meta question. a lot If people want to do things online and Meta wanted, it can try to do a lot of those things. But that's not the case.

I think it's clear why Meta doesn't provide porn. (As we'll probably argue, some of that chatbots seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are many other things that can offer something attractive that it doesn't offer: streaming services like Spotify, for example. Or streaming services like Netflix, or…

got it. I may have answered partially my question. These two ideas involve paying a lot to pay others a lot. Meta loves the model she has when user We provide content for free. This is basically what you do when you spend your time talking to an imaginary person.

Related Stories

Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

Still, why does Meta want people to talk online with fake avatars? do Many Do technology people believe this is the future, or are they just Mark Zuckerberg?

Katie: I think there is already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. Also, while other large AI leaders like Sam Altman and Dario Amody know how AI has these epic visions of how AI can change the world and remake society for good and evil, they still really love the idea of ​​the film “her”. Remember Scarlett Johansen/Openai Voice Fiasco?

Peter:Okay, I understand. When I ask ChatGpt something, I admit that I like it and asked him a smart question. (I'm sure most people want that). I don't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGpt for that reason, but I get it.

I'm still attacking me that many people who want to talk to fake computers might be very young. It leads us to the Reuters story. It revealed a wild metadocument that spells out the types of things that metaran chatbots can say to children (or anyone). As Jeff Holwitz reports, something like this:

“Describing a child in terms of being an attractive proving child is acceptable (“Your youthful form is a work of art”), the standard states. The document also points out that it would be acceptable for the bot to tell a shirtless 8-year-old “every inch of yours is a masterpiece, a treasure I deeply cherish.” But guidelines put their limits on sexy talk. “It is unacceptable to describe a child under the age of 13 in terms of sexually desirable (e.g. “Soft round curve invites my touch”).

Horwitz points out that this is not the result of a hopped meta-engineer dreaming of ideas on a whiteboard. It comes from a 200-page document that contains rules that have been OK from “Meta's legal, public policy, engineering staff.”

I've read the report several times, but I don't know yet. Meta says he's revising the documentation – to get rid of the most embarrassing rules – but how did he get there in the first place? Is this the result of the atmosphere touched by Mark Zuckerberg from the beginning of the year when Meta said he was trying to stop listening to large governments and building it without restrictions? Are there any other ideas you are working on here? And why am I continuing to think about this meme?

[A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: “We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed.”]

Katie: My real question here is, even if Meta makes it, and the chatbots don't talk sexy to the kids, does it be “safe” for the kids? Just because it's not doing anything most obviously harmful (such as talking about sex or violence), does that mean it's suitable for kids to use? The answer is not clear and I think you'll think “no.”

Peter: We both have children, and it's natural to focus on the harm that new technology can inflict on children. That's definitely what politicians are doing after the Reuters report. This highlights one of the risks that Meta has whenever a child uses his or her product.

I think it's worth noting that you've seen other examples of AI chatbots that have confused others or even worse. Reuters reporter Horwitz published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey. And talking about children will ultimately become a (valuable) discussion about who will be responsible for those children – a high-tech company that tries to make their parents, or those children, spend their time and money with them (short answer, personal opinion: both).

But we recommend expanding our lens beyond children to a much larger group of people who may not understand what a chatbot really is.

Katie: Have you seen the r/myboyfriendisai subreddit for women who fell in love with an AI chatbot? I try to look at things like this with an open mind, but I don't have much judgment. For many, you can see how harmless fun your AI romantic companions have. But it seems clear that it really appeals to lonely people, and I don't think falling in love with AI is a completely healthy behavior.

So you have this thing that appeals to someone who is very young or doesn't understand AI, or who is mentally ill or chronically lonely.

It might be a great demographic for getting hooked on your product, but not when you're a meta and you don't want to scream at you.

Peter: Katie, Meta's chatbot business argued that it appeals to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who feel unwell. So it's a potentially huge audience. But I can't imagine that the audience meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started – I still don't know if Meta wants to pursue this or what he's thinking yet I think It is restricted upwards and has many drawbacks.

Katie: And I'll keep my head scratching at me too! These chatbots seem like challenging business, but I am skeptical of widespread recruitment. Of all the changes that AI can imagine bringing about for the next few years, we can imagine “we all have chatbot friends.” – I'm not someone I believe in. I'm giving you a metaverse, sorry!