What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

Post by codedokode » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:33 PM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #316

ragequittah wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have 100 men to 100 women on an imaginary tinder platform and most of the men get rejected by all 100 women it's easy to see where the problem would arise for women too.

In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men. The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.

Post by patrickmay » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:45 PM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #379

I can't really hold my attention on a conversation with an AI for very long because all it does is reflect your own thoughts back to you. Its really a rather boring conversation partner. I'm already pretty good at winning arguments with myself in the shower, thank you very much.

Post by rsynnott » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:54 PM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #126

throwaway48476 wrote: post #50

It would be helpful to tell users that it's just a model producing mathematically probable tokens but that would go against the AI marketing.

Telling people who are playing slot machines “it’s just a random number generator with fixed probabilities in a metal box” doesn’t usually work either

Post by code_for_monkey » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

rahidz wrote: post #312

joshtbradley wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not fully preventable, of course not. But reducible, certainly. Better cars aided by AI. Better diagnoses and healthcare aided by AI. Less addiction to cigarettes and alcohol through AI facilitated therapy. Less obesity due to better diet plans created by AI. I could go on. And that’s just one frame, there are plenty of non-AI solutions we could, and should, be focused on. Really my broader point is we accept the tra…

>but for some reason AI has become a real wedge for people Well yeah, for most other technologies, the pitch isn't "We're training an increasingly powerful machine to do people's jobs! Every day it gets better at doing them! And as a bonus, it's trained on terabytes of data we scraped from books and the Internet, without your permission. What? What happens to your livelihood when it succeeds? That's not my department…

Post by dmoy » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17

chris-vls wrote: post #15

It seems quite probable that an LLM provider will lose a major liability lawsuit. "Is this product ready for release?" is a very hard question. And it is one of the most important ones to get right. Different providers have delivered different levels of safety. This will make it easier to prove that the less-safe provider chose to ship a more dangerous product -- and that we could reasonably expect them to take more…

> a lot of liability law dates back to the railroad era. Another time that it took courts to rein in incredibly politically powerful companies deploying a new technology on a vast scale Do you have a layman-accessible history of this? (Ideally an essay.)