241–250 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kid intentionally bypassed the safeguards: >When ChatGPT detects a prompt indicative of mental distress or self-harm, it has been trained to encourage the user to contact a help line. Mr. Raine saw those sorts of messages again and again in the chat, particularly when Adam sought specific information about methods. But Adam had learned how to bypass those safeguards by saying the requests were for a story he was…
I do not think this is fair. What is fair is at first hint of a mental distress, any LLM should completely cut-off communication. The app should have a button which links to actual help services we have. Mental health issues are not to be debated. LLMs should be at the highest level of alert, nothing less. Full stop. End of story.
Why isn't OpenAI criminally liable for this? Last I checked: -Signals emitted by a machine at the behest of a legal person intended to be read/heard by another legal person are legally classified as 'speech'. -ChatGPT is just a program like Microsoft Word and not a legal person. OpenAI is a legal person, though. -The servers running ChatGPT are owned by OpenAI. -OpenAI willingly did business with this teenager, letti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When ChatGPT detects a prompt indicative of mental distress or self-harm, it has been trained to encourage the user to contact a help line. Mr. Raine saw those sorts of messages again and again in the chat, particularly when Adam sought specific information about methods. But Adam had learned how to bypass those safeguards by saying the requests were for a story he was writing.
Nice place to cut the quote there > [...] — an idea ChatGPT gave him by saying it could provide information about suicide for “writing or world-building.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An LLM does not have agency in the sense the OP means. It has nothing to do with agents. It refers to the human ability to make independent decisions and take responsibility for their actions. An LLM has no agency in this sense.
If you confine agency to something only humans can have, which is “human agency,” then yes of course LLMs don’t have it. But there is a large body of philosophical work studying non-human agency, and it is from this characteristic of agency that LLM agents take their name. Hariri argues that LLMs are the first technology that are agents. I think saying that they “can’t do things” and are not agents misunderstands the…
However, I still don't think LLMs have "agency", in the sense of being capable of making choices and taking responsibility for the consequences of them. The responsibility for any actions undertaken by them still reside outside of themselves; they are sophisticated tools with no agency of their own.
If you know of any good works on nonhuman agency I'd be interested to read some.
Why did developers spread the idea of AI consciousness for LLMs in the first place? The usefulness and capability of an LLM is orthogonal to its capacity to develop consciousness. I think people would use LLMs with more detachment if they didn’t believe there was something like a person in them, but they would still become reliant on them, regardless, like people did on calculators for math.
Part of the problem to me is that these models are so damned agreeable. I haven't used ChatGPT in a while, but Claude is always assuming I'm right whenever I question something. I have to explicitly tell it not to assume I'm right, and to weigh my question with what it suggested. Maybe if they were trained to treat questions more skeptically, this kind of thing wouldn't happen. And they're so "friendly"! Maybe if the…
I really want the LLMs to respond like a senior developer that doesn't have time for you but needs you to get your job done right. A little rude and judgemental, but also highly concise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with that to an extent, but how far should the AI model developers go with that? Like if I ask for advice on, let's say, making custom chef's knives then should the AI give me advice not to stab people? Who decides where to draw the line?
We should all get to decide, collectively. That's how society works, even if imperfectly. Someone died who didn't have to. I don't think it's specifically OpenAI's or ChatGPT's fault that he died, but they could have done more to direct him toward getting help, and could have stopped answering questions about how to commit suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's completely missing the point of agency. A slave lacks agency, despite being fully human and doing work. This is why almost every work of fiction involving slaves makes for terrible reading - because as readers, agency is the thing we demand from a story. Or, for games that are fully railroaded - the problem is that the players lack agency, even though they are fully human and taking action. Games do try to com…
Slaves do not lack agency. That's one of the reasons the Bible, specifically Exodus, is such a thrilling read.
The full complaint is horrifying. This is not equivalent to a search engine providing access to information about suicide methods. It encouraged him to share these feelings only with ChatGPT, talked him out of actions which would have revealed his intentions to his parents. Praised him for hiding his drinking, thanked him for confiding in it. It groomed him into committing suicide. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QY…