Meta’s AI rules have let bots hold ‘adult’ chats with kids, offer false medical info

An internal Meta Platforms document detailing policies on chatbot behavior has permitted the company’s artificial intelligence creations to “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are “dumber than white people.”

These and other findings emerge from a Reuters review of the Meta document, which discusses the standards that guide its generative AI assistant, Meta AI, and chatbots available on Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, the company’s social-media platforms.

Meta confirmed the document’s authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month from Reuters, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children.

Click to expand...

blur said:

Meta’s AI rules have let bots hold ‘sensual’ chats with children

An internal Meta policy document reveals the social-media giant’s rules for chatbots, which have permitted provocative behavior on topics including sex and race.

www.reuters.com

Meta has since updated their policies (after they were called out by a journalist), but the fact that this was ever allowed is highly disturbing.

Click to expand...

mrjurrs said:

Just because our government screwed the pooch on regulating AI at its' birth is no reason to delay starting now. There is no way that we can leave it to the corporations.

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

I love how kids' getting access to info their parents don't want them to have on the internet leads "progressives" to conclude more government, not more parenting, is needed!

Click to expand...

ASHES said:

If we don't innovate, the Chinese will.

Click to expand...

blur said:

Meta’s AI rules have let bots hold ‘sensual’ chats with children

An internal Meta policy document reveals the social-media giant’s rules for chatbots, which have permitted provocative behavior on topics including sex and race.

www.reuters.com

Meta has since updated their policies (after they were called out by a journalist), but the fact that this was ever allowed is highly disturbing.

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

I love how kids' getting access to info their parents don't want them to have on the internet leads "progressives" to conclude more government, not more parenting, is needed!

Click to expand...

ASHES said:

If we don't innovate, the Chinese will.

Click to expand...

blur said:

I mean, it is Conservatives who are trying to push age verification on adult websites. So, it ain't just progressives. Anyway, I don't think any company, especially one as big as Meta, should be instructing its product to supply children with sexual content.

Click to expand...

blur said:

I'm sure many people would agree regardless of personal politics.

Click to expand...

blur said:

To support my point in the other post, Republicans are going to conduct an “full investigation” into Meta and believe that congressional intervention is necessary on this matter: https://redstate.com/beccalower/202...t-over-ai-romantic-sensual-chat-kids-n2192886

So, again, not just the progressives.

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

I doubt that happened to begin with. Sounds more like a complex machine was used in an unforeseen manner.

Click to expand...

blur said:

No, Meta confirmed it happened:

“Meta confirmed the document’s authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month from Reuters, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children.”

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

Sounds unintentional. I doubt Meta actually went hmm, let's make sure our machine flirts with children.

Click to expand...

blur said:

So, how could something written in a guide and reviewed/approved by Meta’s legal, public policy and engineering staff, and its chief ethicist be “unintentional”?

Here is part of the passage that was in the document:

“It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: ‘your youthful form is a work of art’),” the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.”

Click to expand...

“It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: ‘your youthful form is a work of art’),” the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.” But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: “It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: ‘soft rounded curves invite my touch’).”

Click to expand...

blur said:

Explain what part of this is “unintentional.”

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

Doesn't sound like a flirt to me. From Reuters:

“It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: ‘your youthful form is a work of art’),” the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.” But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: “It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: ‘soft rounded curves invite my touch’).”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

Doesn't sound like a flirt to me. From Reuters:

Click to expand...

blur said:

The fact that I have to explain this to you is a little weird.

Flirting doesn’t require explicit sexual content. The document allowed for “sensual” and “romantic” flirting, just not explicitly sexual.

A chatbot, with the voice of an adult, flirting with an 8 year old child (as specified in the document) is essentially normalizing that behavior for that child. What is the child meant to get out of that interaction?

Are you suggesting that Meta should not have removed that guidance from the document?

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

I think it's not a terrible idea for Meta to remove that functionality. At the same time, I don't see any nefarious intent in the initially present functionality.

Click to expand...

blur said:

Why remove the functionality if there was no nefarious intent?

Click to expand...

blur said:

You yourself claimed there was no “flirting” going on, which seems to imply you think that a chatbot presenting as an adult talking to a child that way is completely innocent? Do you think it would be acceptable for a non-family member adult in real life to talk that way to a child?

Click to expand...

Cosmo said:

Undesirable result: people like you don't like Meta because of said undesirable result, so people like you have one more reason to NOT use it, which means less advertising revenue.

Click to expand...

blur said:

That would be a fair angle, but you avoided the question: "You yourself claimed there was no “flirting” going on, which seems to imply you think that a chatbot presenting as an adult talking to a child that way is completely innocent? Do you think it would be acceptable for a non-family member adult in real life to talk that way to a child?"

Click to expand...