Unraveling the ChatGPT Name Conundrum
ChatGPT's Refusal to Name Certain Individuals
Users discovered that not only "David Mayer" but also names like Brian Hood, Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Zittrain, David Faber, and Guido Scorza could crash the service. It became a one-off curiosity that soon grew as more people tried to trick the chatbot into acknowledging these names. Every attempt led to failure or even a break in the middle of the name. "I'm unable to produce a response" was the common reply.Image Credits: TechCrunch/OpenAISome of these names might belong to multiple people. A potential thread identified by users is that these are public or semi-public figures who might prefer certain information to be "forgotten" by search engines or AI models.For instance, Brian Hood, an Australian mayor, accused ChatGPT of falsely describing him in a crime he had reported. His lawyers got in touch with OpenAI, and the offending material was removed.David Faber is a longtime CNBC reporter. Jonathan Turley is a lawyer and Fox News commentator who was "swatted" in late 2023. Jonathan Zittrain is a legal expert who has spoken about the "right to be forgotten." Guido Scorza is on the board at Italy's Data Protection Authority.There is no obvious notable person named David Mayer, except for a Professor David Mayer who taught drama and history and faced legal and online issues due to being associated with a wanted criminal. Mayer fought to disambiguate his name even in his final years.Our guess is that the model has a list of people whose names require special handling due to legal, safety, privacy, or other concerns. These names likely have special rules, just like many others. Every prompt goes through processing before being answered, and these post-prompt handling rules are often not made public.It's likely that one of these active or automatically updated lists was corrupted with faulty code or instructions, causing the chat agent to break. This is just speculation based on what we've learned, but it's not the first time an AI has behaved oddly due to post-training guidance.As with such things, Hanlon's razor applies: Don't attribute strange behavior to malice or conspiracy when stupidity or a syntax error can explain it.This whole drama reminds us that AI models are not magic but are actively monitored and interfered with by the companies that make them. Next time you want facts from a chatbot, it might be better to go directly to the source.Update: On Tuesday, OpenAI confirmed that the name "David Mayer" was flagged by internal privacy tools. In a statement, the company said, "There may be instances where ChatGPT does not provide certain information about people to protect their privacy." The company would not provide further details on the tools or process.Unlawful SEC Regulations on Cryptocurrencies Challenged by 18 States
Background and Context
The Administration's recent rules aimed to force digital asset platforms to register with the SEC as various entities and comply with federal securities laws. However, these nearly century-old laws were never intended to cover digital assets like cryptocurrencies. The SEC claims its regulations are authorized by certain acts, but this claim is being disputed.
Such actions by the SEC are seen as an overreach of federal authority and a violation of the proper balance of power. States have long played a crucial role in legislating on various matters, and the cryptocurrency industry is no exception. The SEC's attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework is harming the development of innovative regulatory approaches at the state level.
Impact on States and Consumers
By asserting sweeping jurisdiction without congressional authorization, the SEC is depriving States of their proper sovereign role. This not only limits the ability of states to develop and enforce tailored digital asset regulations based on their policy priorities but also chills the growth and innovation in the digital asset industry.
Moreover, by trying to fit digital assets into ill-fitting federal securities laws, the SEC is actually harming the very citizens it claims to protect. State laws that have been carefully designed to ensure consumer protection in the digital asset industry are being displaced, potentially leaving consumers at a disadvantage.
Legal Arguments and Analysis
Attorney General Paxton emphasizes that federal bureaucrats in Washington have no authority to dictate to States how they should interact with cryptocurrency. The SEC's regulations are considered unlawful ultra vires actions and violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit highlights the need for a proper respect for the constitutional balance of power and the recognition of the unique nature of the cryptocurrency industry. It calls for a more collaborative approach that allows states to play a meaningful role in regulating this emerging sector.
To read the full filing and understand the details of this important legal battle, click here.