271–280 of 614 posts
> A few hours later, Adam’s mom found her son’s body hanging from the exact noose and partial suspension setup that ChatGPT had designed for him.
Imagine being his mother going through his ChatGPT history and finding this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this framing even better. This is similar to my take on things like Facebook apparently not being able to operate without psychologically destroying moderators. If that’s true… seems like they just shouldn’t operate , then. If you’re putting up a service that you know will attempt to present itself as being capable of things it isn’t… seems like you should get in a shitload of trouble for that? Like maybe don’…
But understand that things like Facebook not operating doesn’t actually make the world any safer. In fact, it makes it less safe, because the same behavior is happening on the open internet and nobody is moderating it.
Facebook have gone so far down the 'algorithmic control' rabbit hole, it would most definitely be better if they weren't operating anymore.
They destroy people that don't question things with their algorithm driven bubble of misinformation.
This is a clear example of why the people claiming that using a chatbot for therapy is better than no therapy are... I'll be extremely generous and say misguided. This kid wanted his parents to know he was thinking about this and the chatbot talked him out of it.
I don't know if it counts as therapy or not but I find the ability to have intelligent (seeming?) conversations with Claude about the most incredibly obscure topics to be very pleasant.
Colin Fraser had a good tweet about this: https://xcancel.com/colin_fraser/status/1956414662087733498#...
In a therapy session, you're actually going to do most of the talking. It's hard. Your friend is going to want to talk about their own stuff half the time and you have to listen. With an LLM, it's happy to do 99% of the talking, and 100% of it is about you.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…
You could also blame Wikipedia for providing suicidal methods for historic reasons or other. Whoever roams the internet is at it's own responsibility. Of course OpenAI is at fault here also, but this is a fight that will never end, and without any seriously valid justification. Just like AI is sometimes bad at coding, same for psychology and other areas where you double check AI.
No Wikipedia page does that.
Can't help but feel like there's way more to this story that we don't know about. If he had rope burns on his neck bad enough for the LLM to see, how didn't his parents notice?
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…
Section 230, without which Hacker News wouldn’t exist.
So either the content is user generated and their training of the model should be copyright infringement, or it's not and Section 230 does not apply and this is speech for which Open AI is responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Google responsible if someone searches for a way to kill themselves, finds the means, and does it? What about the ISP, that actually transferred the bits? What about the forum, that didn't take down the post?
What if Google is responsible? What if the tech industry, instead of just “interrupting” various industries, would also take the responsibilities of this interruptions. After all, if I asked my doctor for methods of killing myself, that doctor would most certainly have a moral if not legal responsibility. But if that doctor is a machine with software then there isn't the same responsibility? Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sucks but the only solution is to make companies censor the models, which is a solution we all hate, so there’s that.
Thank you, “we just have to accept that these systems will occasionally kill children” is a perfect example of the type of mindset I was criticizing.
I'm not looking forward to the day when half of the Internet will require me to upload my ID to verify that I'm an adult, and the other half will be illegal/blocked because they refuse to do the verification. But yeah, think of the children!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if we can shift the framing on these issues. The LLM didn't do anything, it has no agency, it can bear no responsibility. OpenAI did these things. It is accountable for what it does, regardless of the sophistication of the tools it uses to do them, and regardless of intent. OpenAI drove a boy to suicide. More than once. The law must be interpreted this way, otherwise any action can be wrapped in machine lear…
If ChatGPT has helped people be saved who might otherwise have died (e.g. by offering good medical advice that saved them), are all those lives saved also something you "attribute" to OpenAI? I don't know if ChatGPT has saved lives (thought I've read stories that claim that, yes, this happened). But assuming it has, are you OK saying that OpenAI has saved dozens/hundreds of lives? Given how scaling works, would you b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if Google is responsible? What if the tech industry, instead of just “interrupting” various industries, would also take the responsibilities of this interruptions. After all, if I asked my doctor for methods of killing myself, that doctor would most certainly have a moral if not legal responsibility. But if that doctor is a machine with software then there isn't the same responsibility? Why?
"Google is responsible" is equivalent to "let's burn bad books".