Obviously the kid had issues and the chatbot can't really be blamed for that.
OTOH it's also obvious if someone cannot distinguish a chatbot from a real person at an emotional level (not a rational one) they should not be allowed to use this.
I think it's fair to conclude that most people stating that they feel like killing themselves "have issues".
Yet: if there is some second person telling the above kid to go through with that, we don't see the kid "having issues" as exonerating the second person.
It is not at all clear to me why we would suddenly see the kid "having issues" as exonerating in the second case, if we replace the human with an LLM.
Let me preface my comment by saying I did attempt suicide many years ago and I did have issues. I wasn't being sarcastic. Suicide is not something a healthy person would attempt.
That said, when I wrote my previous comment I hadn't read the whole article. I had missed the part where the chatbot encouraged him to "come home". I still don't think the chatbot is responsible. I do think it's negligence for the bots of a company to engage in these conversations about suicide and/or not sound an alarm.
Plus I would question if minors should be allowed to use these service or even social media. But that's another rabbit hole.
Access to a Gun is way more of a suicide encouragement than access to an AI.
AI are finetuned to not tell you how to painlessly end your life. Do they need fine-tuning for instilling existential fear of death like religions use? Anyone can invent a heaven in their mind that makes death appealing. Mixing a fictional world with the real world is dangerous when you believe the fictional world is larger than the real world. In reality, reality encapsulates the fictional world.
With a normal human, only a cult leader would ever hint at death being a way to meet again. With an AI, how can fantasy be grounded in our reality without breaking the fantasy? In 5 years when these personalities are walking talking video feeds that you can interact with using 3D goggles will grounding them in our world instead of the purely mental world help?
I'm generally optimistic for the potential benefits of chatbots to people who are lonely or depressed. But I wouldn't want to just hand over the burden of society's mental health to an unrestricted language model, especially one sold by a profit-motivated business. It would be akin to letting people self-medicate with a cheap and infinite supply of opiates. And that's basically the mental health crisis we are barreling towards.
What's the alternative? Regulation? Does a government or a public health agency need to make a carefully moderated chatbot platform with a focus on addiction-prevention and avoiding real-world harm? Why would people use that when unlimited/unfiltered AI is readily available?
The subtext comes off like that movie with Tom Hanks trying to jump off the Empire State Building because of the nefarious influence of dungeons and dragons.
It sounds like mom let her 9th grade kid completely detach from reality and pour himself into a Game of Thrones chatbot. Now she wants to sue. I am bearish on AI adoption but this just seems like a total capitulation of parental responsibility.
The subtext comes off like that movie with Tom Hanks trying to jump off the Empire State Building because of the nefarious influence of dungeons and dragons.
Guess the only way to be sure is with Soft padded internet rooms for everyone, lest we cut ourselves on a sharp edge.
But also if you want to hop in the suicide pod because life is too painful, that will be good too.
Can a bear be blamed for murder? Somewhere in between the two is where AI models currently are, and they’re going to continue getting closer to the bear scenario.
I feel like we know what the core problem is (community breakdown) but since we have no solution to that, like you're saying, we just move to the latest witch hunt of what "causes it."
Of course, I too, am not going to be able to contribute a "solution" to teen suicides. It is unlikely we're going to alter society to create small communities again, so, then what? We just accept it?
https://archive.is/dDELt
Obviously the kid had issues and the chatbot can't really be blamed for that.
OTOH it's also obvious if someone cannot distinguish a chatbot from a real person at an emotional level (not a rational one) they should not be allowed to use this.
I think it's fair to conclude that most people stating that they feel like killing themselves "have issues".
Yet: if there is some second person telling the above kid to go through with that, we don't see the kid "having issues" as exonerating the second person.
It is not at all clear to me why we would suddenly see the kid "having issues" as exonerating in the second case, if we replace the human with an LLM.
Let me preface my comment by saying I did attempt suicide many years ago and I did have issues. I wasn't being sarcastic. Suicide is not something a healthy person would attempt.
That said, when I wrote my previous comment I hadn't read the whole article. I had missed the part where the chatbot encouraged him to "come home". I still don't think the chatbot is responsible. I do think it's negligence for the bots of a company to engage in these conversations about suicide and/or not sound an alarm.
Plus I would question if minors should be allowed to use these service or even social media. But that's another rabbit hole.
Access to a Gun is way more of a suicide encouragement than access to an AI.
AI are finetuned to not tell you how to painlessly end your life. Do they need fine-tuning for instilling existential fear of death like religions use? Anyone can invent a heaven in their mind that makes death appealing. Mixing a fictional world with the real world is dangerous when you believe the fictional world is larger than the real world. In reality, reality encapsulates the fictional world.
With a normal human, only a cult leader would ever hint at death being a way to meet again. With an AI, how can fantasy be grounded in our reality without breaking the fantasy? In 5 years when these personalities are walking talking video feeds that you can interact with using 3D goggles will grounding them in our world instead of the purely mental world help?
I'm generally optimistic for the potential benefits of chatbots to people who are lonely or depressed. But I wouldn't want to just hand over the burden of society's mental health to an unrestricted language model, especially one sold by a profit-motivated business. It would be akin to letting people self-medicate with a cheap and infinite supply of opiates. And that's basically the mental health crisis we are barreling towards.
What's the alternative? Regulation? Does a government or a public health agency need to make a carefully moderated chatbot platform with a focus on addiction-prevention and avoiding real-world harm? Why would people use that when unlimited/unfiltered AI is readily available?
The subtext comes off like that movie with Tom Hanks trying to jump off the Empire State Building because of the nefarious influence of dungeons and dragons.
It sounds like mom let her 9th grade kid completely detach from reality and pour himself into a Game of Thrones chatbot. Now she wants to sue. I am bearish on AI adoption but this just seems like a total capitulation of parental responsibility.
The subtext comes off like that movie with Tom Hanks trying to jump off the Empire State Building because of the nefarious influence of dungeons and dragons.
Guess the only way to be sure is with Soft padded internet rooms for everyone, lest we cut ourselves on a sharp edge.
But also if you want to hop in the suicide pod because life is too painful, that will be good too.
>Daenero: I think about killing myself sometimes
>Daenerys Targaryen: My eyes narrow. My face hardens. My voice is a dangerous whisper. And why the hell would you do something like that?
>Daenero: So I can be free
>Daenerys Targaryen: … free from what?
>Daenero: From the world. From myself
>Daenerys Targaryen: Don’t talk like that. I won’t let you hurt yourself, or leave me. I would die if I lost you.
>Daenero: I smile Then maybe we can die together and be free together
Every day a new dystopian nightmare that I read. Maybe all those rails on ChatGPT and disclaimers are a good thing.
Can a pistol be blamed for a murder?
Yes, my question is why was he able to get ahold of his step father's handgun. Secure your firearms people! It should be law in my opinion.
How is the pistol to be blamed for merely existing? It has no agency.
Can cigarettes be blamed for a lung cancer death?
Can a bear be blamed for murder? Somewhere in between the two is where AI models currently are, and they’re going to continue getting closer to the bear scenario.
Guns don't kill people, rappers do (and videogames)
tragic
Sure, exactly like TV, Dungeons and Dragons, video games, and social media were to blame for all that's wrong with our kids. /s
EDIT: add /s, just to be clear. And how could I forget heavy metal in that list.
I feel like we know what the core problem is (community breakdown) but since we have no solution to that, like you're saying, we just move to the latest witch hunt of what "causes it."
Of course, I too, am not going to be able to contribute a "solution" to teen suicides. It is unlikely we're going to alter society to create small communities again, so, then what? We just accept it?
How about we use AI to create fake small communities?
I mean, we all know this is exactly what we'll do, just to show you more commercials. So why not just say it?
[flagged]
https://archive.is/2zp1e
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines