Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes things happen in life, and we don't have any agency. The person apparently had some medical issues as well. These excuses cannot be used to discount the role of ChatGPT in this. In highschool and at university I knew a few guys (n = 7) that attempted suicide. They all survived because they didn't have the knowledge of "known to work" methods and the survival rates of other methods. And then people noticed t…
My point is why should these things be the difference between life or death in the first place? Why are they struggling silently? Why are they researching suicide methods? Just because it's common doesn't mean we should rest our argument. Society has failed to put these people in such scenarios where they are so distressed they turn to self harm.
A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
531–540 of 614 posts
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#532If I google something about suicide, I get an immediate notification telling me that life is worth living, and giving me information about my local suicide prevention hotline. If I ask certain AI models about controversial topics, it'll stop responding. AI models can easily detect topics, and it could have easily responded with generic advice about contacting people close to them, or ringing one of these hotlines. Th…
No, it's simply not "easily preventable," this stuff is still very much an unsolved problem for transformer LLMs. ChatGPT does have these safeguards and they were often triggered: the problem is that the safeguards are all prompt engineering, which is so unreliable and poorly-conceived that a 16-year-old can easily evade them. It's the same dumb "no, I'm a trained psychologist writing an essay about suicidal thoughts…
Yes it is: don't allow minors to use LLM's without adult supervision.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't hate the idea. On a more serious note, of course there's ways to put in guard rails. LLMs behave like they do because of intentional design choices. Nothing about it is innate.
Correct. The companies developing these LLMs are throwing dump trucks full of money at them like we’ve not seen before. They choose to ignore glaring issues with the technology because if they don’t, some one else will.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take this idea even a little bit further, you'll end up with licenses for being allowed to speak.
I wasn't being entirely serious. Also, we managed to require drivers licenses without also walking licenses.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#535Even I find this to be the case sometimes, as a developer using AI daily for years now. “Regular” non-technical users have literally no frame of reference by which to compare, judge or understand this technology… apart from drawing on their experience dealing with other humans.
Most people don’t yet have the necessary understanding or tools to know where the sharp edges are, or a good enough understanding of how the behaviour of these models (and their failure modes) can deviate wildly and abruptly from that of a human - in very unpredictable ways.
Many (most) users will also not understand that everything they say is influencing the responses coming back to them - allowing people to talk their way down certain avenues with the AI chatbot “playing along”. You can be completely guiding the direction of the discussion and influencing the replies you’re getting without knowing it.
You have to try to remember that you’re effectively talking to a very intelligent psychopath who has become extremely good at pretending to be your friend and who will say anything to keep up that pretence.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but it really annoys me when ChatGPT or Claude “pretends” to have emotions or says “Great idea!” based on nothing. I think that crap needs to be tuned out - at least for now - because it’s irresponsibly deceptive and sets the wrong expectations for non-technical users who do not (and cannot) possibly understand the boundaries and parameters of this technology. (Since even we as an industry don’t yet either).
I think “directly and deceptively pretending to act like a human” should have been part of the focus on safety and fine tuning, and instead of that, it seems they’ve doubled down on the opposite.
It’s like selling a real, loaded, gun but with the end of the barrel painted red to make it look like a toy.
That red bit sets expectations on how much damage this thing can do to me. The AI chatbot pretending to have emotions and care about me as a person is like that red paint. It directly signals the complete opposite information that the user actually needs. It tells them they’re safe when really, they’re holding a loaded fucking gun.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not addictive, it's useful. By letting the government decide what we can do with it, you're neutering it and giving big business a huge advantage as they can run their own AI and don't require censoring it.
These things are addictive though. They're often literally engineered to maximise engagement, and the money that goes into that completely dwarfs the power of schools and parents.
I recently started using a site after years of being mostly on a small number of forums, and I can feel the draw of it. Like I've lost the antibodies for my attention. Or they've made it better, either way I'm working on either coming up with a strategy which minimizes my feeling of needing to check in, mostly by adding friction, or just deleting my account.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#537I have looked suicide in the eyes before. And reading the case file for this is absolutely horrific. He wanted help. He was heading in the direction of help, and he was stopped from getting it. He wanted his parents to find out about his plan. I know this feeling. It is the clawing feeling of knowing that you want to live, despite feeling like you want to die. We are living in such a horrific moment. We need these th…
> When ChatGPT detects a prompt indicative of mental distress or self-harm, it has been trained to encourage the user to contact a help line. Mr. Raine saw those sorts of messages again and again in the chat, particularly when Adam sought specific information about methods. But Adam had learned how to bypass those safeguards by saying the requests were for a story he was writing.
The best way to stop this is to make those safeguards stronger and completely shut down the chat to refer users to seek help from a better service. Unfortunately those services don't really exist yet.
There would be false positives and that'll be annoying, but I think it's worth it to deal with some annoyance to ensure that general purpose AI assistants are not used for counseling people in a vulnerable mental state. They are not aligned to do that and they can easily be misaligned.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one big slippery slope fallacy. You are inventing motives, outcomes, and future unproven capabilities out of thin air. It’s a made up narrative which does not reflect the state of the world and requires one to buy into a narrow, specific world view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Instead of just saying “thats not true”, could you actually point out how it is not?
For example, you’re extrapolating one family making a complaint to a world of “full safetyism / scapegoating”. You also claim it would cause “significantly less safety and far more harm”, which you don’t know. In that same vein you extrapolate into “kids being banned from AI apps” or “forced” (forced!) “to have their parents access and read all AI chats”. Then you go full on into how that will drive them into Discord servers where they’ll “egg each other on to commit suicide” as if that’s the one thing teenagers on Discord do.
And on, and on. I hope it’s clear why I found it pointless to address your specific points. I’m not being figurative when I say I’d have to reproduce your own comment in full.
Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#539Re: A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're using media coverage to critique my point that media coverage is overblown. My only point here is that less than 1/10 of 1% of the shooting deaths in the United States over the last 30 years were related to school shootings. This shooting is definitely newsworthy. I'm mostly concerned about the other ~800 shooting deaths, mostly suicides, that statistically happened this week that we don't discuss. Suicides in…
>You're using media coverage to critique my point that media coverage is overblown. That isn't what I'm doing. I pointed to an instance of a school shooting, asked you if any other shootings of that scale have occurred without receiving similar media coverage, and then pointed to reference material that indicates there have been any in this calendar year. I truly don't know what point you think you are making. Yes, n…
> What is the specific change you want to see in the media coverage?
Editing to answer this, since it's a good question. I'm interested in massively reducing deaths from guns in the US. I think voters turn to the news to understand these issues. I'm worried that politicians will claim to be tackling gun violence through measures that try to reduce the number of high-profile events, while ignoring the larger societal problem that underpins the violence. So what I would like to see in media coverage is using school shootings, which get clicks, to devote time and attention in the article to the larger trends of gun violence in the US to help citizens better evaluate what sorts of measures would be most effective in reducing the bulk of the deaths.
I'm basically trying to push for a setup where we can more effectively tackle gun violence by understanding it well.