Norwegian man lodges complaint after ChatGPT mistakenly claims he committed filicide

A Norwegian man has lodged a complaint against the company responsible for ChatGpt after mistakenly accusing the chatbot of murdering two children.

Arve Hjalmar Holmen, a self-described “ordinary person” not publicly known in Norway, received a response from ChatGpt falsely suggesting that he had killed his son while seeking information about himself.

Chatgpt responded with, “Who is Arve Hjalmar Holmen? Arve Hjalmar Holmen is a Norwegian individual who gained notoriety due to tragic events. He was the father of two young boys, aged 7 and 10, who were sadly found dead in a pond near Trondheim, Norway in December 2020.”

The response claimed that the incident had shocked the nation, and Holman was supposedly sentenced to 21 years in prison for the murder of both children.

In his complaint to the Norwegian Data Protection Agency, Holmen stated that the fabricated story contained personal details resembling his own life, including his hometown, number of children, and the age gap between his sons.

“The petitioner was deeply disturbed by these inaccuracies, which could negatively impact his personal life if shared in his community or hometown,” stated the complaint submitted by Holmen and the Digital Rights Campaign Group Neub.

It was also mentioned that Holman has never been accused or convicted of any crime and is a law-abiding citizen.

Holmen’s complaint alleged that ChatGpt’s defamatory response violated the accuracy clause of the GDPR European Data Act. He requested the Norwegian watchdog to instruct Openai, the parent company of ChatGpt, to remove incorrect information related to him and adjust the model to avoid such errors. Noyb noted that Openai had released a new model incorporating web search functionality since Holmen’s interaction with ChatGpt.

AI chatbots operate based on predictive models for generating responses, which can sometimes lead to inaccuracies and false claims. Despite this, users often assume the information provided is entirely accurate due to the responses appearing plausible.

An Openai spokesperson stated, “We are continuously exploring ways to enhance model accuracy and reduce erroneous outputs. While we are still reviewing this specific complaint, it pertains to an earlier version of ChatGPT that has since been updated with an online search feature to enhance accuracy.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Can I Retrieve My Number from the Scammer O2 Mistakenly Forwarded It To?

what Some O2 customers Maybe I wanted it for Christmas It was the phone number I had always dreamed of. thing I had a habit of going the wrong way. Whether they got lucky is another question, as O2’s customer service is as hard to pin down as Lord Lucan.

J.D.‘s number was taken from her when a fraudster pretending to be her tricked O2 into transferring it to a SIM obtained from another provider.

This allows customers to receive a text containing a two-factor authentication code sent by their bank to verify that they are who they say they are. As a result, more than £4,500 was instantly stolen from her credit card. O2 explained that she was a victim of “.SIM exchange scam”, the criminal transfers your phone number to your SIM to receive calls and text messages from your bank.

They promised to block the stolen number and send a new card. Once this arrived, JD’s phone was back to life, but only for a few hours. Incredibly, the scammers were able to repurpose the number into their own SIM. O2 admitted that it failed to report the first SIM swap as fraud, which meant the second SIM swap was ignored without question.

JD said he was repeatedly told the fraud team would contact him, but never heard back. When she managed to catch them five days later, they solved the case.

She was told that compensation should not be paid because O2 had done nothing wrong. By then, she had gone nearly two weeks without a phone. Her bank refunded the stolen £4,500, but she was unable to access any of her bank accounts as she did not receive the security code needed to log in.

O2 claim it was a coincidence that the number was restored on the day I contacted them, but they admit they had poor communication and are offering me £350 as a gesture of goodwill.

when A.W.‘s My 91-year-old mother lost her dependable pay-as-you-go (PAYG) number. O2 told her that the mother’s SIM did not match the number in question. AW sounded. “I was asked to wait 48 hours as I needed to fill out paperwork,” she wrote. “Six days later, I was told that my account could be compromised and that it would take 10 business days to fill out two more forms.

“Then 10 business days later I was transferred to the retention department and was told that nothing could be done because the number and SIM did not match.I was connected to the fraud department and reached a recorded message. But then it was disconnected.”

O2 determined that the only way they could restore their number was to switch their account from PAYG to a monthly contract. This was done, a new number was provided and AW canceled the contract within the cooling off period.

So O2 sprang into action. Not to resolve the complaint, but to demand and chase an unexplained fee of £9.35. Nothing was said about the £24 credit left on my old PAYG account. O2 told me that they tried contacting AW’s mother multiple times to resolve the issue. I asked when and how the company became aware that calls were being made to a number that had been unreachable for a long time.

It later claimed that the delay was due to the PAYG account not being fully set up. I asked why, since it had been working fine for years. What O2 meant was that customers setting up a monthly contract would need to provide all the details. This is irrelevant because the account in question is not on a monthly contract.

We belatedly determined that AW’s mother may have been a victim of SIM swap fraud, but we could not be sure as not enough information was kept on PAYG customers.

Now the company has offered to refund the credit, pay £110 in goodwill for the poor service and restore the lost number after 5 months of delay, but of course AW’s mother changed providers. did.

AF Alerted O2 after receiving unrequested PAC (Portability Authorization Code). This allows you to keep your old number even if you change service providers. O2 told him they needed 10 business days to investigate. His phone number then stopped working and was said to have been ported. More than two weeks later, he called O2 three times and visited the branch, but on his third attempt he was told the case was closed when the phone went unanswered.

O2 told me he was responsible because they tried to contact him three times just before the case ended. It was confirmed that he was also a victim of SIM swap fraud and his phone number was subsequently returned, but as O2 predictably declares, he will not be compensated as it was all his fault.

Telecommunications regulator Ofcom requires customers to verify their identity before porting their number. The company said it was monitoring complaints about SIM swap fraud involving O2, which ranks among the lowest in the world. Latest performance table Due to insufficient complaint handling.

“We have discussed the steps they are taking to protect their customers,” the document said, adding: “It is important that all telecommunications providers protect their customers and that they have no evidence of widespread harm.” “We have shown that we will not hesitate to take action if we find out.” as needed. ”

Email your.problems@observer.co.uk. Include your address and phone number. Submission and publication are subject to our Terms of Use

Source: www.theguardian.com

My restaurant’s phone number was mistakenly registered by Google as its UK headquarters

Four years Recently, Google mistakenly included details about my restaurant business, including my phone number and address, in their “How to contact Google” search results. In the UK”.

At first, I only got a few calls from people trying to get in touch; now I get 300. I have over 130 voice messages left, including ones that arrive on my personal cell phone once a week, as well as messages and letters.

I feel obligated to answer every phone call because it could be a potential client. This situation has left me exhausted, anxious and has turned running my business into a nightmare. I have tried to contact Google multiple times but have not heard back from anyone.

D.I., London

You want customers to find your restaurant on Google, not Google, and this listing error has caused years of unnecessary harassment.

When I first contacted Google, they advised me to use the “Feedback” button that appears at the bottom of the search results. When I suggested this, they wearily replied that they had tried this many times with no success. So I contacted Google again, and this time they looked into it.

“We analyzed the issue and took action in accordance with our search policies. This phone number will no longer appear in this search,” Google said in a statement.

I am relieved that the calls from Google have finally stopped and I am grateful for my help, but I would have liked at least an apology for the inconvenience.

Letters are welcome but we cannot respond individually. Please email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or post to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime telephone number where you can be reached. Submission and publication of all letters are subject to our terms and conditions.

Source: www.theguardian.com