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

ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 439 posts

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#381

Post by sfn42 »

entropi wrote: post #323

Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.

I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it.

If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.

It's quite the same as if I read an article and then tell someone about it. If I'm allowed to learn from your article then why isn't openai?

Also the terms are just for liability. Nobody gives a shit what you use ChatGPT for, the only thing those terms do is prevent you from turning around and suing OpenAI after it blows up in your face.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#382

Post by sarchertech »

terminalshort wrote: post #364
sarchertech wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t possibly have enough data to support that statement.

Do you have enough data to support the opposite conclusion? If not, your call for data is just a pathetic attempt to sound rational while making an empty appeal to authority.

I’m not calling for data. I’m saying the commenter doesn’t have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions—even informal ones.

Just based on the amount of time ChatGPT has been out and the maximum number of different diagnosable and confirmable ailments they could have had in that time.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#383

Post by sabatonfan »

agentcoops wrote: post #328
xp84 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this seems actually wildly reasonable. It’s actually pretty scammy to take people’s money (or whatever your business model is) for legal or medical advice just to give them whatever AI shits out. If I wanted ChatGPT’s opinion (as I actually often do) I’d just ask ChatGPT for free or nearly-free. Anyone repackaging ChatGPT’s output as fit for a specialized purpose is scamming their customers.

Indeed. Similarly, I like now having ChatGPT as the absolute lowest bar of service I’m willing to accept. If you aren’t a better therapist, lawyer or programmer than it then why would I think about paying you.

Having chatgpt as your therapist is actually wild.

Its yes-man abilities etc. will not help you and its always helpful to talk to another human being in the loop during therapy so that you know you are actually being sane.

Don't ever compromise money on your mental health.

If you need to, either join offline anonymous support groups or join some good forums/discord servers/reddit about therapy if you can not even afford that. They are good enough and I think personally for me, whats therapatic is to try to understand and help the other person who was struggling just as I once was y'know

But saying to use chatgpt as a therapist is just something that I hate a lot simply because in my opinion, it might actually even be harmful but I am not sure.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#384

Post by saberience »

dotancohen wrote: post #359
saberience wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT isn’t random though. If you ask it what a star is, it’s never going to tell you it’s a giant piece of cheese floating in the the sky. If you don’t believe me, try it, write a for loop which asks ChatGPT, what is a star (astronomy) exactly? Ask it 1000 times and then tell me how random it is versus how consistent it is. The idea that non deterministic === random is totally deluded. It just means you cannot pre…

> If you ask it what a star is, it’s never going to tell you it’s a giant piece of cheese floating in the the sky. Turn the Top-P and the temperature up. Turning up the Top-P will enable the LLM to actually produce such nonsense. Turning up the temperature will increase the chance that such nonsense is actually selected for the prediction (output).

Sure but nobody is doing that, are they?

I'm talking about the standard settings, and infact GPT-5 doesn't let you change the temperature anymore.

Also, that's not really the point. Humans can also produce nonsense if you torture them until they're talking nonsense, but that doesn't mean humans are "random."

LLMs are not random, they are non-deterministic, but the two words have different meanings.

Random means you cannot tell what is going to be produced at all, i.e. a random number generator.

But if you ask an LLM, is an Apple a fruit, answer yes or no only, the LLM is going to answer yes, 100% of the time. That isn't random.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#385

Post by snoman »

elcritch wrote: post #370
shagie wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the key word in that passage is "decisions". You can't use ChatGPT (or other OpenAI offerings) to grade essays, decide who is the least risky tenant, assign risk for insurance, filter resumes, approve a loan, determine sentencing... Those are things that require human agency for "a person decided this" rather than "we fed it into the program and took the answer."

Which of course means humans will use it for those decisions until there’s some lawsuits and maybe some laws.

Humans have been using bad data to make decisions for a while now.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#386

Post by dotancohen »

saberience wrote: post #384
dotancohen wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ask it what a star is, it’s never going to tell you it’s a giant piece of cheese floating in the the sky. Turn the Top-P and the temperature up. Turning up the Top-P will enable the LLM to actually produce such nonsense. Turning up the temperature will increase the chance that such nonsense is actually selected for the prediction (output).

Sure but nobody is doing that, are they? I'm talking about the standard settings, and infact GPT-5 doesn't let you change the temperature anymore. Also, that's not really the point. Humans can also produce nonsense if you torture them until they're talking nonsense, but that doesn't mean humans are "random." LLMs are not random, they are non-deterministic, but the two words have different meanings. Random means you c…

I agree with everything that you've stated.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#387

Post by entropi »

sfn42 wrote: post #381
entropi wrote: post #323

Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.

I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…

And I feel like the difference between, say;

- Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie

- Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process.

should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested interest in not understanding the outrage, so they don't.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#388

Post by snoman »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #378
dotancohen wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. I'm working with a company that writes AI tools for mental health professionals. The output of the models _never_ goes to the patient. I've heard quite a few mouthfuls of how harmful LLM advice is for mental health patients - with specific examples. I'm talking on the order of suicide attempts (a…

Professionals have confirmation bias too and the LLM will hook into that regardless of patient or professional. It's so good at it that even "training" the professional received can be subtly bypassed. Basically there needs to be an LLM that can push back.

LLMs generate tokens. They don’t have judgement. They would need judgement in order to have a basis for pushing back.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#389

Post by dotancohen »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #378
dotancohen wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. I'm working with a company that writes AI tools for mental health professionals. The output of the models _never_ goes to the patient. I've heard quite a few mouthfuls of how harmful LLM advice is for mental health patients - with specific examples. I'm talking on the order of suicide attempts (a…

Professionals have confirmation bias too and the LLM will hook into that regardless of patient or professional. It's so good at it that even "training" the professional received can be subtly bypassed. Basically there needs to be an LLM that can push back.

I'd love to hear more about how you see it. You're absolutely not wrong. I'm writing tools in this space, so if you have experience or examples to share - I've got a huge file of them - I am interested.

You are invited to answer here or in private. My Gmail username is the same as my HN username.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#390

Post by snoman »

sfn42 wrote: post #381
entropi wrote: post #323

Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.

I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…

Quite the over-simplified straw man you have there.
Post reply on HN