361–370 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that killing a few people is acceptable as long as the net result is positive? I don't think that's how the law works.
It's the trolley problem reframed; not sure we have a definitive answer to that.
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.
In this current case, the outcome is horrible, and the answers that ChatGPT provided were inexcusable. But looking at a bigger picture, how much of a better chance does a person have by everyone telling them to "go to therapy" or to "talk to others" and such? What others? Searching "online therapy", BetterHelp is the second result. BetterHelp doesn't exactly have a good reputation online, but still, their influence is widespread. Licensed therapists can also be bad actors. There is no general "good thing" that is tried and true for every particular case of human mental health, but even letting that go, the position is abused just as any other authority / power position is, with many bad therapists out there. Not to mention the other people who pose as (mental) health experts, life coaches, and such. Or the people who recruit for a cult.
Frankly, even in the face of this horrible event, I'm not convinced that AI in general fares that much lower than the sum of the people who offer a recipe for a better life, skills, company, camaraderie. Rather, I feel like that AI is in a situation like the self-driving cars are, where we expect the new thing to be 110%, even though we know that the old thing is far for perfect.
I do think that OpenAI is liable though, and rightfully so. Their service has a lot of power to influence, clearly outlined in the tragedy that is shown in the article. And so, they also have a lot of responsibility to reign that in. If they were a forum where the teen was pushed to suicide, police could go after the forum participants, moderators, admins. But in case of OpenAI, there is no such person, the service itself is the thing. So the one liable must be the company that provides the service.
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.
Maybe I don’t understand well enough. Could anyone highlight what the problems are with this fix? 1. If ‘bad topic’ detected, even when model believes it is in ‘roleplay’ mode, pass partial logs, attempting to remove initial roleplay framing, to second model. The second model should be weighted for nuanced understanding, but safety-leaning. 2. Ask second model: ‘does this look like roleplay, or user initiating rolepl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of these cases exist in the other direction? Where AI chatbots have actively harmed people’s mental health, including possible to the point of self destructive behaviors or self harm? A single positive outcome is not enough to judge the technology beneficial, let alone safe.
idk dude if your technology encourages a teenager to kill itself and prevents him from alerting his parents via a cry for help, I don’t care how “beneficial” it is.
I understand the emotional impact of what happened in this case, but there is not much to discuss if we just reject everything outright.
This is dumb. Nobody is writing articles about all the times the opposite happened, and ChatGPT helped prevent bad stuff. However, because of the nature of this topic, it’s the perfect target for NYT to generate moral panic for clicks. Classic media attention bait 101. I can’t believe HN is falling for this. It’s the equivalent of the moral panic around metal music in the 1980s where the media created a hysteria arou…
You should be ashamed of yourself.
This is dumb. Nobody is writing articles about all the times the opposite happened, and ChatGPT helped prevent bad stuff. However, because of the nature of this topic, it’s the perfect target for NYT to generate moral panic for clicks. Classic media attention bait 101. I can’t believe HN is falling for this. It’s the equivalent of the moral panic around metal music in the 1980s where the media created a hysteria arou…
Yes, it rhymes with what you described. But this one has hard evidence. And you’re asking to ignore it because a similar thing happened in the past?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, they'll just prescribe a higher dose when that happens, thus worsening the problem. I'm not defending the use of AI chatbots, but you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a worse solution for depression than the medical system.
Not my experience at all. The Psych that prescribed me antidepressants was _incredibly_ diligent. Including with side effects that affected my day to day life like loss of Libido. We spent a long time finding something, but when we did it worked exceptionally well. We absolutely did not just increase the dose. And I'm almost certain the literature for this would NOT recommend an increase of dosage if the side effect…
Opioids in the US are probably the most famous case though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic
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?
Because it is a machine and has no agency. Same as why if you ask someone to stab you and they do they are liable for it, but if you do it yourself you don't get to blame the knife manufacturer.
Entities shouldn't be able to outsource liability for their decisions or actions — including the action of releasing stochastic parrots on society at large — on computers. We have precedent that occupations which make important decisions that put lives at risk (doctors, ATC, engineers for example) can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions if it is the result of negligence. Maybe it's time to see include computer engineers in that group.
They've been allowed to move fast and break things for way too long.
It says a lot about HN that a story like this has so much resistance getting any real traction here.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people that look to chatgpt for answers and help (as they've been programmed to do with all the marketing and capabilities from openai) should just die because they looked to chatgpt for an answer instead of google or their local suicide helpline? That doesn't seem reasonable, but it sounds to me like what you're saying. > So did the user. If he didn't want to talk to a chatbot he could have stopped at any time. T…
Firstly, people don't "just die" by talking to a chatbot. Secondly, if someone wants to die then I am saying it is reasonable for them to die.
During a lifetime, your perspective and world view will change completely - multiple times. Young people have no idea, because they haven't had the chance to experience it yet.