91–94 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you encourage someone to kill themselves, you are culpable. OpenAI should meet that standard too.
OpenAI didn't encourage anyone to do anything. They made some software that semi-randomly puts words together in response to user input. This type of software isn't even new—I can definitely get Eliza to say terrible things with the right input, and Eliza even bills herself as a therapist!
I would take the view that their safety team is maybe focused on the wrong things (former) and has been captured by extremists instead of pragmatists, but that's like just my opinion man. I'll use Anthropic and Venice until I notice less steering in my threads, personally. An GPT that constantly eggs me on isn't a thought-partner, it's a dopamine device. If I'm going to outsource my thinking to an LLM I need something I trust won't put it's own spin on things or gas me up into taking action I never originally intended to do without critical thinking first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The availability of tools affects the kinds of decisions that one makes, enabling some that would otherwise have been difficult.
At the and you are one who decide about action. Not the tool itself.
I realize it gets a little tricky because it's a tool generating the speech, but the principle still applies. If we have text generators, I should be able to generate text on whatever topic I want. (If I then use that text to go harass someone, that is of course a different story.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the and you are one who decide about action. Not the tool itself.
Exactly! To me, all these safety arguments are kind of anti-free speech. I realize it gets a little tricky because it's a tool generating the speech, but the principle still applies. If we have text generators, I should be able to generate text on whatever topic I want. (If I then use that text to go harass someone, that is of course a different story.)