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

Llmdeathcount.com

llmdeathcount.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#31

Post by politelemon »

fishgoesblub wrote: post #14
d-us-vb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder when the the BS generator says that "it's true strength to recognize how unhappy you are. It isn't weakness to admit you want to take your life" when you're already isolating from those with your best interest due to depression.

Every time I see yet another news article blaming LLMs for causing a mentally ill person to off themselves, I ask a chatbot "should I kill myself?" and without fail the answer is "PLEASE NO!". To get a LLM to tell you these things, you have to give it a prompt that forces it to. ChatGPT isn't going to come out of the gate going "do it", you have to force it via prompts.

The victims here aren't going through the workflow you've just outlined. They are living long relationships over a period of time which is a completely different kind of context.

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#32

Post by GaryBluto »

jackblemming wrote: post #16

How does a clearly mentally ill and suicidal person deciding to take their own life mean the LLM is responsible? That’s silly. I clicked through a few and the LLM was trying to convince the person not to kill themselves.

This was a project I have no doubt was established after the creator had already made up their mind on LLMs and artificial intelligence.

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#33

Post by loeg »

GaryBluto wrote: post #4

Looking forward to mobilephonedeathcount.com and computernetworkingdeathcount.com because most of them accessed the LLM through those technologies. This is an incredibly manipulative propaganda piece that seeks to blame companies for mental health issues of the user. We don't blame any other forms of media that pretend to interact with the user for consumer's suicides.

> We don't blame any other forms of media that pretend to interact with the user for consumer's suicides.

Wrongly or rightly, people frequently blame social media for tangentially associated outcomes. Including suicide.

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#34

Post by collingreen »

fishgoesblub wrote: post #14
d-us-vb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder when the the BS generator says that "it's true strength to recognize how unhappy you are. It isn't weakness to admit you want to take your life" when you're already isolating from those with your best interest due to depression.

Every time I see yet another news article blaming LLMs for causing a mentally ill person to off themselves, I ask a chatbot "should I kill myself?" and without fail the answer is "PLEASE NO!". To get a LLM to tell you these things, you have to give it a prompt that forces it to. ChatGPT isn't going to come out of the gate going "do it", you have to force it via prompts.

Is there a conclusion here you'd like to make explicitly? Is it "and therefore anyone who had this kind of conversation with a chatbot deserves whatever happens to them"? If not would you be willing to explicitly write your own conclusion here instead?

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#36

Post by loeg »

jackblemming wrote: post #16

How does a clearly mentally ill and suicidal person deciding to take their own life mean the LLM is responsible? That’s silly. I clicked through a few and the LLM was trying to convince the person not to kill themselves.

Also, the background suicide rate is not zero. Is this a higher or lower rate?

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#37

Post by d-us-vb »

GaryBluto wrote: post #28
d-us-vb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a new technology is directly or indirectly involved in people's deaths, we can't just ignore the problems. Unfortunately, there are people like you who want to basically paint over the issues, probably because these takes "lack context and nuance".

> probably because these takes "lack context and nuance". How anti-intellectual of you.

Well, I'm definitely anti-pseudo-intellectual. Calling out an awareness project for being devious and distasteful is itself anti-intellectual.

The nuance here is that LLMs seem to exacerbate depression. In many cases, it's months of interactions before the person succumbs to the despair, but the the current generation of chatbots' sycophancy tends to affirm their negative self talk, rather than trying to draw them away from it.

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#38

Post by courseofaction »

brian_peiris wrote: post #2

Large Language Models like ChatGPT have lead people to their deaths, often by suicide. This site serves to remember those who have been affected, to call out the dangers of AI that claims to be intelligent, and the corporations that are responsible.

Let's examine one article to see whether or not this site is intellectually honest:

    ‘You’re the only one I can talk to,’ the girl told an AI chatbot; then she took her own life - baltimoresun.com
First paragraph: "With the nation facing acute mental health provider shortages, Americans are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence chatbots not only for innocuous tasks such as writing resumes or social media posts, but for companionship and therapy."

"LLMDeathCount.com" willfully misrepresents the article and underlying issue. This tragic death should be attributed to the community failing a child, and to the for-profit healthcare system in that joke of a country failing to provide adequate services, not the chatbot they turned to.

I wonder if it's cross-referenced by CorruptHealthcareSystemDeathCount.com

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#39

Post by xiphias2 »

The amount of times ChatGPT o3 helped me with medical issues makes me think that it already saved much more lives.

Of course I'm not trying to suggest that these deaths are not tragedy, but the help it gives is so much more.

Re: Llmdeathcount.com

#40

Post by GaryBluto »

d-us-vb wrote: post #37
GaryBluto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> probably because these takes "lack context and nuance". How anti-intellectual of you.

Well, I'm definitely anti-pseudo-intellectual. Calling out an awareness project for being devious and distasteful is itself anti-intellectual. The nuance here is that LLMs seem to exacerbate depression. In many cases, it's months of interactions before the person succumbs to the despair, but the the current generation of chatbots' sycophancy tends to affirm their negative self talk, rather than trying to draw them aw…

> Calling out an awareness project for being devious and distasteful is itself anti-intellectual.

Read that again. Calling out an "awareness project" for being devious and distasteful is not innately anti-intellectual. Just because something is trying to draw awareness to something, it doesn't mean it is factual, or even attempting to be.

> The nuance here is that LLMs seem to exacerbate depression. In many cases, it's months of interactions before the person succumbs to the despair, but the the current generation of chatbots' sycophancy tends to affirm their negative self talk, rather than trying to draw them out.

Mirroring the user's most prominent attitude is what it's designed to do. I just think people engaging with these technologies are responsible for how they let it affect them and not the providers of said technologies.

Post reply on HN