i didn’t say they were the same, you put those words in my mouth. I put them both in the category of things that need regulation in a way that rope does not. are you seriously of the opinion that it is fine and good that people are using their ai chatbots for mental healthcare? are you going to pretend to me that it’s actually good and normal for a human psychology to have every whim or fantasy unceasingly flattered?
I put them both in the category of things that need regulation in a way that rope does not
My whole point since the beginning is that this is dumb, hence my comment when you essentially said shooting projectiles and saying bad things were the same. Call me when someone shoots up a school with AI. Guns and AI are clearly not in the same category.
And yes, I think people should be able to talk to their chatbot about their issues and problems. It’s not a good idea to treat it as a therapist but it’s a free country. The only solution would be massive censorship and banning local open source AI, when it’s very censored already (hence the need for jailbreak to have it say anything sexual, violent or on the subject of suicide).
Think for a second about what you are asking and what it implies.
you essentially said shooting projectiles and saying bad things were the same.
no i didnt say that because it’s a stupid fucking thing to say. i dont need your hand up my ass flapping my mouth while im speaking, thanks.
How about I call you when a person kills themself and writes their fucking suicide note with chatgpt’s enthusiastic help, fucknozzle? Is your brain so rotted that you forgot the context window of this conversation already?
You can’t defend your position because it’s emotional exaggeration. Now you’re lashing out and being insulting.
My whole point is that they aren’t the same and you keep saying “let’s treat them as if they were”, then you use it in comparisons and act like a child when I point out how silly that is.
Clarify what you mean. Take the gun out of the conversation and stop bringing it up. Stop being disingenuous. Don’t be a baby.
you want me to explain it differently, and I will. that’s a very reasonable request.
i think we should regulate things that can be shown to be dangerous to indiviiduals or society as a whole. I will take your rope example as not dangerous in that way and leave it unexamined, assuming you agree. compare to guns. guns are dangerous and you seem to agree with this too. rope is different from a gun, but both can be used to kill people. why don’t we regulate rope? in a nutshell, because it takes a hell of a lot of effort to hurt or kill someone with rope. compare to a gun. the amount of effort required to kill a person, many people, with a modern firearm is a physical triviality comparable to brushing your teeth or changing your clothes. guns can be harmful without even trying, but you have to go out of your way to hurt someone with rope.
compare with the current unregulated implementation of chatbots, as in the case of this child’s suicide. a technology which can calmly sit with you and convince you that your suicide is a beautiful expression of individuality or whatever sycophantic bullshit that desperate child read.
here, let’s remind ourselves of some of the details presented in the article. This will no doubt be a refresher for you.
mourning parents Matt and Maria Raine alleged that the chatbot offered to draft their 16-year-old son Adam a suicide note after teaching the teen how to subvert safety features and generate technical instructions to help Adam follow through on what ChatGPT claimed would be a “beautiful suicide.”
Adam’s family was shocked by his death last April, unaware the chatbot was romanticizing suicide while allegedly isolating the teen and discouraging interventions.
On Tuesday, OpenAI published a blog, insisting that “if someone expresses suicidal intent, ChatGPT is trained to direct people to seek professional help” and promising that “we’re working closely with 90+ physicians across 30+ countries—psychiatrists, pediatricians, and general practitioners—and we’re convening an advisory group of experts in mental health, youth development, and human-computer interaction to ensure our approach reflects the latest research and best practices.”
so, according to this lawsuit, a child was taught to circumvent chatgpt’s safety measures by chatgpt itself, encouraged to commit suicide, and this all happened despite the fact that the model was specifically trained not to do this. this happened despite the large amount of effort that was put in to avoiding something like this.
that this is even a possibility means we do not have the control over this technology it might otherwise appear that we do. Uncontrollable technology is dangerous. Dangerous technology should be regulated. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
i didn’t say they were the same, you put those words in my mouth. I put them both in the category of things that need regulation in a way that rope does not. are you seriously of the opinion that it is fine and good that people are using their ai chatbots for mental healthcare? are you going to pretend to me that it’s actually good and normal for a human psychology to have every whim or fantasy unceasingly flattered?
My whole point since the beginning is that this is dumb, hence my comment when you essentially said shooting projectiles and saying bad things were the same. Call me when someone shoots up a school with AI. Guns and AI are clearly not in the same category.
And yes, I think people should be able to talk to their chatbot about their issues and problems. It’s not a good idea to treat it as a therapist but it’s a free country. The only solution would be massive censorship and banning local open source AI, when it’s very censored already (hence the need for jailbreak to have it say anything sexual, violent or on the subject of suicide).
Think for a second about what you are asking and what it implies.
no i didnt say that because it’s a stupid fucking thing to say. i dont need your hand up my ass flapping my mouth while im speaking, thanks.
How about I call you when a person kills themself and writes their fucking suicide note with chatgpt’s enthusiastic help, fucknozzle? Is your brain so rotted that you forgot the context window of this conversation already?
You can’t defend your position because it’s emotional exaggeration. Now you’re lashing out and being insulting.
My whole point is that they aren’t the same and you keep saying “let’s treat them as if they were”, then you use it in comparisons and act like a child when I point out how silly that is.
Clarify what you mean. Take the gun out of the conversation and stop bringing it up. Stop being disingenuous. Don’t be a baby.
you want me to explain it differently, and I will. that’s a very reasonable request.
i think we should regulate things that can be shown to be dangerous to indiviiduals or society as a whole. I will take your rope example as not dangerous in that way and leave it unexamined, assuming you agree. compare to guns. guns are dangerous and you seem to agree with this too. rope is different from a gun, but both can be used to kill people. why don’t we regulate rope? in a nutshell, because it takes a hell of a lot of effort to hurt or kill someone with rope. compare to a gun. the amount of effort required to kill a person, many people, with a modern firearm is a physical triviality comparable to brushing your teeth or changing your clothes. guns can be harmful without even trying, but you have to go out of your way to hurt someone with rope.
compare with the current unregulated implementation of chatbots, as in the case of this child’s suicide. a technology which can calmly sit with you and convince you that your suicide is a beautiful expression of individuality or whatever sycophantic bullshit that desperate child read.
here, let’s remind ourselves of some of the details presented in the article. This will no doubt be a refresher for you.
so, according to this lawsuit, a child was taught to circumvent chatgpt’s safety measures by chatgpt itself, encouraged to commit suicide, and this all happened despite the fact that the model was specifically trained not to do this. this happened despite the large amount of effort that was put in to avoiding something like this.
that this is even a possibility means we do not have the control over this technology it might otherwise appear that we do. Uncontrollable technology is dangerous. Dangerous technology should be regulated. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
for more information about AI safety, check out robert miles.