Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 548 posts

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#311

Post by scotty79 »

delaminator wrote: post #304
DanielVZ wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think we need to be hyper focused on this. We do not need more ways for people to be convinced of suicide. This is a huge misalignment of objectives and we do not know what other misalignment issues are already more silently happening or may appear in the future as AI capabilities evolve. Also we can’t deny the emotional element. Even though it is subjective, knowing that the reason your daughter didn’t seek gui…

Did you know that 5% of all deaths in Canada is by elective suicide?

On one hand it shows terrible inadequacies of Canadian health care. On the other would it be better to force people to suffer till the natural end of their lives that are terrible because of those inadequacies? Healthcare won't get significantly better soon enough for them anyways. It seems better to "discover" what percentage of people want to end their lives in current conditions and improve those conditions to improve that percentage. That might be a very powerful measure of how good we are doing with added benefit of not forcing suffering people to suffer longer.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#312

Post by rahidz »

joshtbradley wrote: post #246
qcnguy wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that it's ridiculous to talk about banning AI because some people misuse it, but the word preventable is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that argument. Preventable how? Chopping down all the coconut trees? Re-establishing the prohibition? Deciding prayers > healthcare? Our society is deeply uncomfortable with the idea that death is inevitable. We've lost a lot of the rituals and traditions over the centuries th…

Not fully preventable, of course not. But reducible, certainly. Better cars aided by AI. Better diagnoses and healthcare aided by AI. Less addiction to cigarettes and alcohol through AI facilitated therapy. Less obesity due to better diet plans created by AI. I could go on. And that’s just one frame, there are plenty of non-AI solutions we could, and should, be focused on. Really my broader point is we accept the tra…

>but for some reason AI has become a real wedge for people

Well yeah, for most other technologies, the pitch isn't "We're training an increasingly powerful machine to do people's jobs! Every day it gets better at doing them! And as a bonus, it's trained on terabytes of data we scraped from books and the Internet, without your permission. What? What happens to your livelihood when it succeeds? That's not my department".

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#313

Post by no2_fresh »

joshtbradley wrote: post #240

It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…

So we should only focus on smoking til it's down to under 4 million?

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#314

Post by scotty79 »

mrbungie wrote: post #255
joshtbradley wrote: post #240

It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…

> It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. Companies are bombarding us with AI in every piece of media they can, obviously with a bias on the positive. This focus is an expected counterresponse to said pressure, and it is actually good that we're not just focusing on what they want us to hear (i.e. just the pros and not…

> obviously with a bias on the positive

Wait, really? I'd say 80-90% of AI news I see is negative and can be perceived as present or looming threats. And I'm very optimistic about AI.

I think AI bashing is what currently best sells ads. And that's the bias.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#315

Post by scotty79 »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #247
joshtbradley wrote: post #240

It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…

Yes, Your Honor, I did convince this teenager to kill herself - but 150 people a year die from coconuts!

I think this neatly illustrates how irrelevant justice system is for people's well being and that real work in harm reduction happens pretty much anywhere else.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#316

Post by bakugo »

ragequittah wrote: post #300
bakugo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people. For some people, yes, but 99% of those people are men. The whole "women with AI boyfriends" thing is an entirely different issue.

If you have 100 men to 100 women on an imaginary tinder platform and most of the men get rejected by all 100 women it's easy to see where the problem would arise for women too.

In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.

The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#317

Post by scotty79 »

no2_fresh wrote: post #313
joshtbradley wrote: post #240

It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…

So we should only focus on smoking til it's down to under 4 million?

Yes, thousand times yes. How tf cultivation of tobacco is still legal? This shouldn't be an industry. There should be 3 plants per person limit and ban on sales and gifting. It's should be a controlled substance. Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man and in tobacco it's packaged with cancer inducing garbage. How is it legal?

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#318

Post by survirtual »

HeinzStuckeIt wrote: post #263
survirtual wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Chimpanzees and Bonobos are our distant ancestors. Have a look at how they operate. From what I can tell, men have cause significant damage to women's psyche. Men that turn women into a commodity plaything instead of a fellow human being. Women are human beings just like men, they aren't some alien species. Trauma hurts their psyche, not pleasure. If women were in a safe, supportive, mature society, some wo…

If you read journalism about why women are frustrated with dating today, one of the number-one complaints is that the men they are meeting are “flaky”, women can’t trust that the man will be there for her. Your depiction that “women don’t really need men” completely misses the current trend that this thread is about.

I never said women don't need men, did I? Let me read what I said again.

No, I never said that. I said women need safety, and society is largely not safe for them.

Human beings are social creatures. Women need men. Women need women. Men need women. Men need men. We all need each other.

The system patterns of online dating cultivate undesirable traits in both men and women which result in side effects that no one would want. "Flakiness" is one such side effect.

Online dating dynamics create high abundance, low commitment environments that systematically produce “flakiness,” so the issue isn’t about women needing men or not, but that both sexes operate in a degraded safety/trust landscape shaped by platform incentives rather than by real world social cues. Restore actual interpersonal safety and the entire pattern shifts positive, with less defensive behavior, less attrition, less pain, and more ethical orgasms.

All people, regardless of gender, should cultivate a safety in both society and in themselves. This safety is liberating. Instead of controlling people, you free them. Instead of binding, you uplift. Instead of harming, you heal. This is the basis of safety.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#319

Post by survirtual »

Refreeze5224 wrote: post #232
whatsupdog wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is sexist pseudo-scientific hogwash, and should have no place here.

Agreed, but this is also a male-dominated space with a lot of men with relationship issues, so objectivity goes out the window when it comes to women here.

I enjoy all the technical discourse here but the views on women are alarming to say the least.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#320

Post by Zobat »

DanielVZ wrote: post #299
joshtbradley wrote: post #240

It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…

I do think we need to be hyper focused on this. We do not need more ways for people to be convinced of suicide. This is a huge misalignment of objectives and we do not know what other misalignment issues are already more silently happening or may appear in the future as AI capabilities evolve. Also we can’t deny the emotional element. Even though it is subjective, knowing that the reason your daughter didn’t seek gui…

> We do not need more ways for people to be convinced of suicide.

I am convinced (no evidence though) that current LLMs has prevented, possibly lots of, suicides. I don't know if anyone has even tried to investigate or estimate those numbers. We should still strive to make them "safer" but with most tech there's positives and negatives. How many, for example, has calmed their nerves by getting in a car and driven for an hour alone and thus not committed suicide or murder.

That said there's the reverse for some pharmaceutical drugs. Take statins for cholesterol, lots of studies for how many deaths they prevent, few if any on comorbidity.

Post reply on HN