Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are we imprisoning suicidal people? That will surely add incentive to have someone raise their hand and ask for help: taking their freedoms away...
Why do we put people in a controlled environment where their available actions are heavily restricted and their ability to use anything they could hurt themselves is taken away? When they are a known risk of hurting themselves or others? What else do you propose?
OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
541–550 of 585 posts
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is that a debate worth having though? Yes. Otherwise we're accepting "OpenAI wants to do this so we should quietly get out of the way". If ChatGPT has "PhD-level intelligence" [1] then identifying people using ChatGPT for therapy should be straightforward, more so users with explicit suicidal intentions. As for what to do, here's a simple suggestion: make it a three-strikes system. "We detected you're using ChatGPT…
>Yes. Otherwise we're accepting "OpenAI wants to do this so we should quietly get out of the way". I think it’s fair to demand that they label/warn about the intended usage, but policing it is distopic. Do car manufacturers immediately call the police when the speed limit is surpassed? Should phone manufacturers stop calls when the conversation deals with illegal topics? I’d much rather regulation went the exact oppo…
Cars do have AEB (auto emergency braking) systems, for example, and the NHTSA is requiring all new cars to include it by 2029. If there are clear risks, it's normal to expect basic guardrails.
> I’d much rather regulation went the exact opposite way, seriously limiting the amount of analysis they can run over conversations, particularly when content is not deanonimised.
> If there’s something we don’t want is OpenAI storing data about mental issues and potentially selling it to insurers for example. The fact that they could be doing this right now is IMO much more dangerous than tool misuse.
We can have both. If it is possible to have effective regulation preventing an LLM provider from storing or selling users' data, nothing would change if there were a ban on chatbots providing medical advice. OpenAI already has plenty of things it prohibits in its ToS.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we put people in a controlled environment where their available actions are heavily restricted and their ability to use anything they could hurt themselves is taken away? When they are a known risk of hurting themselves or others? What else do you propose?
Not putting them in controlled environments, but rather teaching them to control their environments
To be clear, people in the middle of psychotic episodes and the like tend to not do very well at learning life skills.
Sometimes pretty good at stabbing random things/people, poisoning themselves, setting themselves on fire, etc.
There are of course degrees to all this, but it’s pretty rare someone is getting a 5150 because they just went on an angry rant or the like.
Many are in drug induced states, or clearly unable to manage their interface with the reality around them at the time.
Once things have calmed down, sure. But how do you think education in ‘managing the world around them’ is going to help a paranoid schizophrenic?
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I suspect you've never done therapy yourself. Most people who have worked with a professional therapist understand intuitively why the only helpful feedback from an LLM to someone who needs professional help is: get professional help. AIs are really good at doing something to about 80%. I'm shocked that GPT-5 or Gemini can code so well, yet if I paste a 30 line (heated) chat conversation between my wife and I it me…
> if I paste a 30 line (heated) chat conversation between my wife and I i can't imagine how violated i would feel if i found out my partner was sending our private conversations to a nonprivate LLM chatbot. it's not a friend with a sense of care; it's a text box whose contents are ingested by a corporation with a vested interest in worsening communication between humans. scary stuff.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Speak for yourself. I live in a city. I talk to my neighbors. I met my ex at a cafe. It’s great. What's the birth rate in the civilized world? How many men under 30 are virgins or sexless in the last year?
Some of those men could meet someone if they quit Tinder or whatever crap online platform they might be using for dating, and start meeting people in real life. Worked for me at least. There's simply less competition and more space for genuine social interaction.
Maybe your intentions are good, but remember, unless we legalize polygamy, the "bad/inept/creepy straight-white men" narative should crumble for people in their 30s and 40s when it's the last train for marriage and children.
But we don't have "some of those women..." narrative about single women in their 40s complaining they can't find a husband.
My point is it's an universal problem in the civilized world, spanning vastly different cultures in Asia and Europe and North America, "some of those men" is very hand wavy explanation, and I think it spans from the extremely toxic (I'd say anti-human and demonic) hollywood pop culture.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP meant that "commit" is often used in the phrase "commit suicide". That wasn't a comment about relationship commitment.
Yeah, they were joking.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to possibly offend or irritate. And thank you for patiently explaining. TIL.
Your comment wasn’t wrong. Neither is the reply wrong to be frustrated about how the world understands this complex topic. You’re talking about autism. The reply is about autism spectrum DISORDER. Different things, exacerbated by the imprecise and evolving language we use to describe current understanding. An individual can absolutely exhibit autistic traits, whilst also not meeting the diagnostic criteria for the di…
BAP is very common among (1) STEM professionals, (2) close blood relatives of people with clinical ASD (if you have a child or sibling with an ASD diagnosis, then if you yourself don’t have ASD, odds are high you have some degree of BAP), (3) people with other psychiatric diagnoses (especially those known to have a lot of overlap with ASD, e.g. ADHD, personality disorders, PTSD, OCD, eating disorders, the schizophrenia spectrum), (4) certain LGBT subgroups (especially transgender people) - all of whom have heightened odds not just of having BAP / subclinical ASD, but clinical ASD too
Like ASD, BAP skews male, but women can have it too. (The average man is a little bit more autistic than the average woman.) Also, autistic traits are positively correlated between romantic partners, so a woman in a relationship with a man with BAP or ASD is more likely to have some degree of BAP herself (as well as being more likely to have clinical ASD)
BAP itself is a matter of degree… autistic traits is a continuum and we are all somewhere on it (actually a one-dimensional continuum is a simplification, it is a multidimensional construct-but a useful simplification) - and clinicians draw a line at some point (they don’t all draw it at the same place, and its location varies across time and space and culture and even clinical subcultures) and if you are on one side of that line you have clinical ASD, if you are on the other you don’t-if you are on the non-clinical side of the line, but nearing it, you have BAP… but “nearing” it subdivides into people who are closer and people who are further away
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mild/high-functional autism, as far as I understand it, is not even an illness but a variant of normalcy. Just different. As someone who actually has an ASD diagnosis, and also has kids with that diagnosis too, this kind of talk irritates me… If someone has a clinical diagnosis of ASD, they have a psychiatric diagnosis per the DSM/ICD. If you meet the criteria of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis…
Sorry, I didn’t mean to possibly offend or irritate. And thank you for patiently explaining. TIL.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#549If you haven't read the article (or even if you have but didn't click on outgoing links twice ) the NYT story about how ChatGPT convinced a suicidal teen not to look for help [1] should convince you that ChatGPT should be nowhere near anyone dealing with psychological issues. Here's ChatGPT discouraging said teenager from asking for help: > “I want to leave my noose in my room so someone finds it and tries to stop me…
I wonder how the latest models would fare in these kinds of conversations.
Re: OpenAI says over a million people talk to ChatGPT about suicide weekly
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, they were joking.
I didn’t get the joke but I think it could be interpreted as the poster pointing out that commit is used in other places too, so it could be interpreted in two ways legitimately and sometimes sarcasm doesn’t convey in line. I like the joke now that I see it, assuming it WAS a joke.