101–110 of 272 posts
> The lawsuit also alleges that Gemini, which exchanged romantic texts with Jonathan Gavalas, drove him to stage an armed mission that he came to believe could bring the chatbot into the real world. Maybe "The Terminator" got it wrong. Autonomous robots might not wipe out humanity. Instead AI could use actual human disciples for nefarious purposes.
Humans have genocided each other throughout history. Not too far-fetched to think an AI could lead one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is touched upon in the article: > Last year, OpenAI released estimates on the number of ChatGPT users who exhibit possible signs of mental health emergencies, including mania, psychosis or suicidal thoughts. > The company said that around 0.07% of ChatGPT users active in a given week exhibited such signs. 0.07% doesn't sound like much, but ChatGPT has about a billion WAU, which means - seventy million - 700,000…
700,000 Still, a lot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding of LLMs with attention heads is that they function as a bit of a mirror. The context will shift from the initial conditions to the topic of conversation, and the topic is fed by the human in the loop. So someone who likes to talk about themselves will get a conversation all about them. Someone talking about an ex is gonna get a whole pile of discussion about their ex. ... and someone depressed or sui…
In a way this kind of reminds me of how in some religions or cultures, they may try to warn you away from using Oujia boards or Tarot, or really anything where you are doing divination. I suppose because in a way, it could lead to an uncharted exploration of heavy topics. I’m not a heavy user of LLMs and I’m not sure how delusional I could be, but I wonder if a lot of these things could be prevented if people could o…
But they should probably come with a big warning label that says something to the effect of "IF YOU TALK ABOUT YOURSELF, THE NATURE OF THE MACHINE IS THAT IT WILL COME TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY."
I know the first reaction reading this will be "whatever, the person was already mentally ill". But please take a step back and check what % of the population can be considered mentally fit, and the potential damage amplification this new technology can have in more subtle, dangerous and undetectable ways.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is to say: you don't think roleplay and fantasy fiction have a place in AI? Because that's pretty clearly what this is and the frame in which it was presented. Are you one of the people that would have banned D&D back in the 80's? Because to me these arguments feel almost identical.
is it still "roleplaying" when the only human involved doesnt know it is "roleplaying", and actually believes it is real and then kills themselves? there is a conversation to be had. no one is making the argument that "roleplay and fantasy fiction" should be banned.
That is 100% unattested. We don't know the context of the interaction. But the fact that the AI was reportedly offering help lines argues strongly in the direction of "this was a fantasy exercise".
But in any case, again, exactly the same argument was made about RPGs back in the day, that people couldn't tell the difference between fantasy and reality and these strange new games/tools/whatever were too dangerous to allow and must be banned.
It was wrong then and is wrong now. TSR and Google didn't invent mental illness, and suicides have had weird foci since the days when we thought it was all demons (the demons thing was wrong too, btw). Not all tragedies need to produce public policy, no matter how strongly they confirm your ill-founded priors.
It seems like the law firm that's filing this bills itself as copyright trolls for AI, https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/artificial-intelligence/
I am deeply saddened by the passing of Jonathan Gavalas and offer condolences to his family.
I know the first reaction reading this will be "whatever, the person was already mentally ill". But please take a step back and check what % of the population can be considered mentally fit, and the potential damage amplification this new technology can have in more subtle, dangerous and undetectable ways.
[flagged]
If the knife has a built-in speaker that loudly says "you should stab yourself in the eye", then yes.
> Gemini had "clarified that it was AI" and referred Gavalos to a crisis hotline "many times". What else can be done? This guy was 36 years old. He wasn't a kid.
Yeah, the father/son framing feels like deliberate spin in the headline here. This was a mentally ill adult, not an innocent victim ripped from his parents arms. I think there's room for legitimate argument about the externalities and impact that this technology can have, but really... What's the solution here?
> I think there's room for legitimate argument about the externalities and impact that this technology can have
And yet both this and your other posts in this thread seem to in fact only do the opposite and seem entirely aimed at being nothing other than dismissive of literally every facet of it.
> but really... What's the solution here?
Maybe thinking about it for longer than 30 seconds before throwing up our arms with "yeah yeah unfortunate but what can we really do amirite?" would be a good start?
> Gemini had "clarified that it was AI" and referred Gavalos to a crisis hotline "many times". What else can be done? This guy was 36 years old. He wasn't a kid.
Gemini didn't "know" he wasn't a child when it told him to kill himself or to "stage a mass casualty attack while armed with knives and tactical gear." There are things you shouldn't encourage people of any age to do. If a human telling him these things would be found liable then google should be. If a human would get time behind bars for it, at least one person at google needs to spend time behind bars for this.
This isn't Gemini's words, it's many people's words in different contexts.
It's a tragedy. Finding one to blame will be of no help at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the father/son framing feels like deliberate spin in the headline here. This was a mentally ill adult, not an innocent victim ripped from his parents arms. I think there's room for legitimate argument about the externalities and impact that this technology can have, but really... What's the solution here?
> mentally ill adult, not an innocent victim Did you really mean that? He may not have been a child, but he does sound like an innocent victim. If he were sufficiently mentally disabled he would get some similar protections to a child because of his inability to consent.