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

The other half of AI safety

personalaisafety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: The other half of AI safety

#121

Post by Forgeties79 »

projectazorian wrote: post #73
Forgeties79 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is not a human being, let alone a licensed therapist. You don’t call a therapist at 3 in the morning. You go to a hospital. If you are literally about to kill yourself Sam Altman is not your answer. Hell call a crisis hotline. Talk to a person . Not a potential (bot) enabler.

> ChatGPT is not a human being, let alone a licensed therapist. You don’t call a therapist at 3 in the morning. You go to a hospital. If you are literally about to kill yourself Sam Altman is not your answer. You know that mental health is a continuum right? There are a lot of problems people have that fall far short of active suicidal ideation. Maybe you think they should just add them to their journal for discussio…

If you are trying to call your therapist at 3 AM it’s because you’re in crisis. If you are not in crisis, it can wait.

Re: The other half of AI safety

#122

Post by Henchman21 »

davebren wrote: post #118
Gigachad wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech companies will pull trillions of dollars out of their asses when the problem is boosting ad revenue or automating people out of a job. But when asked to deal with the crisis they invented and dumped on society the answer is “that’s impossible, doesn’t scale”

Mapping and photographing every road on the planet? Easy. Not manipulating our chatbot users into psychosis and suicide or worse? No way can't be done.

This puts the lie plainly on display doesn't it?

So let's summarize: these "people" are allowed to induce mental illness in the general population with no repercussions. Let's speculate about who might benefit from a population with a significant amount of mental illness? Hmm, I wonder who would benefit? Could it be the people at the top that like to treat the bulk of humanity as cattle?

Re: The other half of AI safety

#123

Post by Henchman21 »

nojs wrote: post #28

> Every week, somewhere between 1.2 and 3 million ChatGPT users, roughly the population of a small country, show signals of psychosis, mania, suicidal planning, or unhealthy emotional dependence on the model. > Why is mental-health crisis not a gating category, the kind where the conversation stops, full stop, and the user is routed to a human? Well, obviously “routing to a human” is not feasible at that scale. And c…

If causing problems at scale is possible, being held accountable for said problems is also possible. Not attempting to deal with the crisis they've created should, in my personal view, result in corporate forfeiture and the immediate sell off of assets and destruction of whatever led to said crisis, and a charge of gross criminal negligence filed against the C-suite and board of said companies.

Re: The other half of AI safety

#124

Post by js8 »

busterarm wrote: post #120
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster wants to relax the Americans with disability act (ADA) rules so corporations (may they be blessed) can more readily fire inconvenient people with disabilities.

I did not say that at all. I am saying that because of ADA rules, an unfortunate side effect is that people suffer from workplace harassment/violence because their coworkers are too unstable to function amicably in an office environment. I said that "I don't know what to do about this". Any of us would be fired for way more benign behavior/comments, but because the person is a protected class, basically "fuck you, de…

Look, I am not an American, I am not sure what rules you refer to specifically, but I have lot of doubt that a person from protected class would be able to sue if they had a history of abuse.

Re: The other half of AI safety

#126

Post by [deleted] »

fragmede wrote: post #46
asdff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therapy is cheap (as in like $10)/free with insurance. However there are still 10 states that have not expanded medicaid after the ACA, mostly in the south. But also, to suggest these people are not receiving therapy is not always the case. Talk therapy is just that, talking to someone on ones problems to learn about them, their triggers, determining coping mechanisms to move forward with one's life. People might ins…

ChatGPT it's available at 3am when you're in crisis and you don't have to fit into its busy schedule.

[deleted]

Re: The other half of AI safety

#127

Post by ryandrake »

godelski wrote: post #68
nojs wrote: post #28

> Every week, somewhere between 1.2 and 3 million ChatGPT users, roughly the population of a small country, show signals of psychosis, mania, suicidal planning, or unhealthy emotional dependence on the model. > Why is mental-health crisis not a gating category, the kind where the conversation stops, full stop, and the user is routed to a human? Well, obviously “routing to a human” is not feasible at that scale. And c…

> is not feasible at that scale I want to use an analogy here. The same arguments are often made about cleaning up environmental damage. So either make the companies doing the polluting pay for the costs themselves or if we care so much about them being profitable then we subsidize them by paying for those cleanup efforts out of taxes. Doing nothing is a worse form of subsidy as it not only costs more (in literal dol…

We keep letting em get away with the same old excuse: "The company can't fix X problem because it operates 'at scale' and you'd need millions of humans to perform corrective action Y at that same scale!"

Re: The other half of AI safety

#128

Post by ryandrake »

vkou wrote: post #112
thaumasiotes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a problem we didn't already have? How well was HR doing on hiring before?

They had a paper trail and processes that were documented and could be cross-examined on during discovery and lawsuits and trials. Now it's just 'the computer says so, shrug '. Over in the DoD, the computer says you must die, so I guess you die. Sometimes it says that about a building full of schoolchildren, but hey, nobody's at fault, the computer said so. And it's going to get it's tentacles into every space in bet…

"Computer says so" has been a problem for decades too, though, just with a powerless human customer support agent in the middle. They've just automated away the computer's human voicebox.

Re: The other half of AI safety

#129

Post by vkou »

ryandrake wrote: post #128
vkou wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a paper trail and processes that were documented and could be cross-examined on during discovery and lawsuits and trials. Now it's just 'the computer says so, shrug '. Over in the DoD, the computer says you must die, so I guess you die. Sometimes it says that about a building full of schoolchildren, but hey, nobody's at fault, the computer said so. And it's going to get it's tentacles into every space in bet…

"Computer says so" has been a problem for decades too, though, just with a powerless human customer support agent in the middle. They've just automated away the computer's human voicebox.

Quantity has a quality all of its own. This is a paradigm shift. If it weren't, everyone wouldn't be head over heels to adopt it. It makes so many new awful uses, or turning up existing awful uses economical.

We supercharge the worst thing about computers, and you shrug and go 'eh, whatever.'

Why? Is human dignity worthless to you? Do you have no expectation of accountability from anyone with power over you or me?

Re: The other half of AI safety

#130

Post by vkou »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #116
vkou wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that ~100% of those 700 million people will have a bad, utterly dehumanizing experience when they will next be looking for a job, because OpenAI is heavily used by HR. That's the problem with AI safety. Not in voluntary usage, but in involuntary usage, where someone with power over you will use it against you, it does something incredibly stupid and you have no recourse, no appeal, no awareness of wha…

You described a society problem that preexisted LLMs What else can you blame on “scary AI?” >>Not in voluntary usage, but in involuntary usage, where someone with power over you will use it against you, it does something incredibly stupid and you have no recourse, no appeal, no awareness of what you did wrong - or if you even did anything wrong. Yeah….that’s every society ever

In every society that was worth living in, accountability was a key factor. Decision-makers need to be able to be held to account for why they made a decision. Maybe not in every case, but in many, many cases.

If your society doesn't have that, it's on a fast track slide down into a dystopian shithole. Stop it. Do something about it. Don't just shrug your shoulders and act like this is inevitable, or like the shareholders making 1% more money this year justifies this slide.

Post reply on HN