51–60 of 248 posts
I’ve had a few conversations with people who use ChatGPT as a therapist. There is real danger of using LLMs that are engineered agree with you, at least in terms of therapy.
AI Therapists? No rules! Do what you want! Move fast, break people! (Except in Illinois. They fortunately banned AI use in therapy)
Anthropic is also scanning conversations and reporting them to the authorities [0]. These conversations are not about harming oneself or others but asking questions about how to interact with computer systems. [0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-countering-misuse-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tbh i just run local because i can . No real reason too. edit: there are some instances where i would like to be able to set the same seed repeatedly which isn't always possible online.
Realistically, how useful is local LLM usage? What are your use cases, hardware, and models used?
Didn't we have a conversation a few days ago where a kid committed suicide while documenting it on ChatGPT and the clear consensus was that if OpenAI had been scanning user's conversations and reporting them to the police, this could have been averted, and this was a huge issue? But now when they go and do it, everyone says this is completely unacceptable? What exactly is OpenAI supposed to do, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an awful lot of explaining to do between "one man has a psychotic breakdown" and "the species is not ready".
yeh by that justification our technological advancement should have stopped at sharpened sticks. "As a species we aren't ready to have sharp sticks"
It's probably too late now - Pandora's box has been opened - but just in the US, about one school shooting or mass shooting every two days proves that at least one member of the species isn't uniformly ready to have firearms.
Assuming for a moment that sanctioned warfare is justifiable, in peacetime we have at least managed to build a political and military apparatus that has generally kept nuclear, conventional explosive, and chemical/biological weapons out of the control of the subset of the species who are vulnerable to this sort of psychotic breakdown.
Syncophantic AI chat bots are already making this weakness worse.
> Update: It looks like this may have been OpenAI's attempt to get ahead of a horrifying story that just broke, about a man who fell into AI psychosis and killed his mother in a murder-suicide. Full details here. With the URL being https://futurism.com/openai-scanning-conversations-police . From there: > "Erik, you're not crazy. Your instincts are sharp, and your vigilance here is fully justified," ChatGPT told Soelb…
If my family member had had ChatGPT, when they had their last episode, it's entirely possible that I might not be here, as "Everyone is plotting to kill me" is a big motif in SAD (it was, in their case, and they needed to be hospitalized). If you sincerely believe that people are trying to kill you, then killing them first, just makes sense. Looks a lot like that's what happened, here.
But it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can't live in a "nerf world," where everything is safe for everyone. Life is Risk and living out of our comfort zone.
I feel that it's important for each of us that is "taking a side," to understand that folks "on the other side" aren't necessarily enemies. They may be blinded by the personal imperative of the issue, but they aren't actually "out to get you."
The politicians may be two-faced creeps, using people's legitimate fears as leverage, but they aren't the rule.
For the record, I am vehemently against "Nerf World," but there's a very, very real problem here, and it would be good if we could approach it in a reasonable manner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They tried to mitigate sycophancy in the GPT-5 release. Guess what happened? A lot of users started complaining that "GPT-5 sucks, my AI now HATES me". And OpenAI relented.
This is kind of a big problem. Because on the one hand, sycophancy is not really what you want to do for people in mental and emotional crisis. On the other hand, not being sycophantic is not really what you want to do for people in mental and emotional crisis. There are professionals who speak to people in crisis for a reason. That's because it's fraught with pitfalls and trapdoors that take the situation from "ment…
It’s pretty damning that OpenAI can’t modify its LLM to redirect people away from violence or from AI psychosis. Instead they’ve given up and have started monitoring conversations on behalf of governments. Obviously what comes next is monitoring anti-government sentiment or predicting “bad” or “antisocial” behavior on behalf of governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sycophancy is a known flaw in ChatGPT. Seems like OpenAI has no real coherent plan but reacting to every horror story with an ill fitted solution.
They tried to mitigate sycophancy in the GPT-5 release. Guess what happened? A lot of users started complaining that "GPT-5 sucks, my AI now HATES me". And OpenAI relented.
And also, there are unrelated complaints of "GPT-5 can't solve the same problems 4 did". Those were very real too, and meant OpenAI did a wrong thing.