Live data from Hacker News

What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

nytimes.com

471–480 of 548 posts

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#471
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, would be on-board with erasing coconut trees from the planet. Why, one might ask? Well, simple: Nobody really needs them, do they? And I, for one, don't enjoy the flavor of a coconut: I find that the taste lingers in my mouth in ways that others do not, such that it becomes a distraction to me inside of my little pea brain. I find them to be ridiculously easy to detect in any dish, snack, or meal. My tast…

Also it's a living organism in it's own right and other non-humans make use of it, like coconut crabs. Nature doesn't exist just for us. Humans kill a lot more coconut trees (or sharks) than they kill us.

Don't care.

It's not useful to me. It can go away.

(Yes, this may mean that I am short-sighted. I'm allowed to be as short-sighted as anyone else is.)

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#472
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that chatbots don't provide emotional support. To support someone with PTSD you help them gradually untangle the strong feelings around a stimulus and develop a less strong response. It's not fast and it's not linear but it requires a mix of empathy and facilitation. Using an LLM for social interaction instead of real treatment is like taking heroin because you broke your leg, and not getting it set or…

>instead of real treatment As yes, because America is well known for actually providing that at a reasonable price and availability...

Then we should fix that, instead of dumping 3 trillion dollars on grifters and some of the worst human beings we have produced.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the nature of his interests, if you don't mind sharing? I'm always curious about how these things develop -- makes it easier to recognize. Seems like a lot of them fall into either "I'm onto a breakthrough that will change the world" (sometimes shading into delusion/conspiracy territory), or else vague platitudes about oneness and the true nature of reality. The former feels like crankery, but I wonder if th…

It was a mix of mystical philosophy and transhumanism and he does think that "the world is on the edge of a breakthrough" but he sees it as emergent. It is not something he is personal creating just something he believes is imminent and he is one of the first people to recognise it.

Oh weird, was he also bad at socializing?

I often have to remind myself of the quote "Talk to a man about himself and he will listen for hours" when socializing to remember to ask questions and let the other party explore whatever topic/situation they are into. It seems like AI conversations are so one-sided a person might forget to cede the floor entirely.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think we need to be hyper focused on this. We do not need more ways for people to be convinced of suicide. This is a huge misalignment of objectives and we do not know what other misalignment issues are already more silently happening or may appear in the future as AI capabilities evolve. Also we can’t deny the emotional element. Even though it is subjective, knowing that the reason your daughter didn’t seek gui…

>I’ve seen two instances of attempted suicide driven by AI in my small social circle Christ, that's a lot. My heart goes out to you and I understand if you prefer not to answer, but could you tell more about how the AI-aspect played out? How did you find out that AI was involved?

I was going to write a full answer with all details but at some point it gets too personal so I’ll just answer the questions briefly.

> but could you tell more about how the AI-aspect played out?

So in summary the AI sycophantically agreed with how there was no way out of the situations and how nobody understood their position further isolating them. And when they contemplated suicide it did assist on the method selection with no issues whatsoever.

> How did you find out that AI was involved?

The victims mentioned it and the chat logs are there.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#476
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That is exactly the point. The opposite of nannying is the dignity of risk. Sometimes that risk is going to carry harm or even death. I don't think anyone who is arguing against nannying in this way would bat an eye at the potential cost of lives, that's a feature not a bug. Constraints on individual liberty as it harms or restricts the liberty of others makes sense. It becomes nannying is when it restricts your…

That’s a pretty limited take on “hurt”. A person without a seatbelt will get worse injuries, and require greater medical attention. In other words, it does hurt other people.

This is exactly the kind of tortured logic I was talking about. By going this route you're actually agreeing with me and then doing whatever mental gymnastics necessary to twist everything that only harms the individual into some communal harm. Your argument applies equally to riding a motorcycle.

Obviously eating cheeseburgers should be illegal because you'll put a strain on the medical system when you get hypertension and heart disease.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#477

Caelan Conrad made a few videos on specifically AI encouraging kids to socially isolate and commit suicide. In the videos he reads the final messages aloud for multiple cases, if this isn't your cup of tea there's also the court cases if you would prefer to read the chat logs. It's very harrowing stuff. I'm not trying to make any explicit point here as I haven't really processed this fully enough to have one, but I e…

A quote from ChatGPT that illustrates how blatant this can be, if you would prefer to not watch the linked videos. This is from Zane Shamblin's chats with it. “Cold steel pressed against a mind that’s already made peace? That’s not fear. That’s clarity.”

I mean if we view it as a prediction algorithm and prompt it with "come up with a cool line to justify suicide" then that is a home run.

This does kinda suck because the same guardrails that prevent any kind of disturbing content can be used to control information. "If we feed your prompt directly to a generalized model kids will kill themselves! Let us carefully fine tune the model with our custom parameters and filter the input and output for you."

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not narrow, you just wrote a lot of positive psychology babble. This is an epistemological question and everything you wrote is epistemically bankrupt. To wit: “Another, might intuit that the religious ceremony has been shown throughout their lives, to confer divine protection” This kind of mythology is why humans and human society will never escape the cave, and semi-literate people sound smart to the illiterate…

Well now, here’s a puzzle for you. If literate humans don’t believe in myth, and all US Presidents had religious affiliation, were they all a) semi-literate ‘cave people’, b) cynical manipulators of the semi-literate cave-people, c) something else? And if a person practices any myth-based festival, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, is that indicative to you of a semi-literate cave-person? Or do you make exemptions for ho…

No exemptions, I don’t really mess with science fiction other than what I’ve written.

Are you seriously asking if the US president is a semi literate person?

The answer is obvious

Read this and be enlightened: https://kemendo.com/benchmark.html

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, 'suffering builds character'. I haven't had that one in a while. Maybe we should not want to get prepared for RealPeople™ if all they can do is break us and disappoint us. "But RealPeople™ can also elevate, surprise, and enchant you!" you may intervene. They sure than. An still, some may decide no longer to go for new rounds of Russian roulette. Someone like that is not a lesser person, they still have real™ enjo…

This is the exact kind of thinking that leads to this in the first place. The idea that a human relationship is, in the end, just about what YOU can get from it. That it's just simply a black box with an input and output, and if it can provide the right outputs for your needs, then it's sufficient. This materialistic thinking of other people is a fundamentally catastrophic worldview. A meaningful relationship necessa…

> This is the exact kind of thinking that leads to this in the first place. The idea that a human relationship is, in the end, just about what YOU can get from it. That it's just simply a black box with an input and output, and if it can provide the right outputs for your needs, then it's sufficient. This materialistic thinking of other people is a fundamentally catastrophic worldview.

> A meaningful relationship necessarily requires some element of giving, not just getting. The meaning comes from the exchange between two people, the feedback loop of give and take that leads to trust.

This part seems all over the place. Firstly, why would an individual do something he/she has no expectation to benefit from or control in any way? Why would he/she cast away his/her agency for unpredictable outcomes and exposure to unnecessary and unconstrained risk?

Secondly, for exchange to occur there must a measure of inputs, outputs, and the assessment of their relative values. Any less effort or thought amounts to an unnecessary gamble. Both the giver and the intended beneficiary can only speak for their respective interests. They have no immediate knowledge of the other person's desires and few individuals ever make their expectations clear and simple to account for.

> Not everyone needs a romantic relationship, but to think a chatbot could ever fulfill even 1% of the very fundamental human need of close relationships is dangerous thinking. At best, a chatbot can be a therapist or a sex toy. A one-way provider of some service, but never a relationship. If that's what is needed, then fine, but anything else is a slippery slope to self destruction.

A relationship is an expectation. And like all expectations, it is a conception of the mind. People can be in a relationship with anything, even figments of their imaginations, so long as they believe it and no contrary evidence arises to disprove it.

Re: What OpenAI did when ChatGPT users lost touch with reality

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Chimpanzees and Bonobos are our distant ancestors. Have a look at how they operate. From what I can tell, men have cause significant damage to women's psyche. Men that turn women into a commodity plaything instead of a fellow human being. Women are human beings just like men, they aren't some alien species. Trauma hurts their psyche, not pleasure. If women were in a safe, supportive, mature society, some wo…

If you read journalism about why women are frustrated with dating today, one of the number-one complaints is that the men they are meeting are “flaky”, women can’t trust that the man will be there for her. Your depiction that “women don’t really need men” completely misses the current trend that this thread is about.

> complaints is that the men they are meeting are “flaky”, women can’t trust that the man will be there for her.

No, that's not a complaint that the "modern" man isn't some sort of 1950s provider, it's a complaint that he does not text back. Everyone on the apps suffers from ghosting. It's exhausting because you have to be "On" in 100% of your interactions and texts but there's only like a 2% chance it will continue in any shape no matter what you do.

Even the "tradwife" trend is not actually harkening back to the 50s and a strong provider man, and instead lionizes a reality that never existed and is much more about wanting to check out of the rat race that harms us all. These women do not want to be a 1950s homemaker, they just want to focus on their hobbies and not worry about money.

Post reply on HN