Whisky has entered the chat
Unless it’s guns then entire countries base their personalities on them.
You could make the argument that guns have more responsibilities tied to them.
If you where to leave a loaded gun out on the table, and someone where to steal it off your table you would also be held liable for the crime because it wasn't locked away in a gun safe unloaded.
LLMs are the equivalent of handing out a loaded gun to everyone for free, even if they adamantly don't want one. People like Sam Altmann and elon musk who keep pushing for this garbage to be your therapist and the only way to interact with life should face serious consequences like life in prison, and the companies they run should get a fine that's impossibly large to pay off just like how infowars got a 500billion dollar fine. Info wars and chatgpt are pretty much the same product.
You can choose to not use them.
You can choose not to respond to every comment.
You can choose not to respond to my text if you didn't care enough to address the underlying point.
Also I don't have to use it or I should get used to it or it will replace my job what is it.
I think you’re thinking of an ideal world or a utopia.
I mean not in the US. Guns would have long been pulled off if that was the case. Same with booze and a million other things.
AI isn’t enshrined in the constitution though
Neither is booze.
I wonder if the lawyers pretend that's what confused the chatbot
Nominative determinism.
The law really needs to catch up with these developments. AI companies are selling the illusion of talking to an intelligence, then when it goes wrong hiding behind the fact that it's just a machine designed to spew out bullshit. They know damn well how compelling that illusion is.
They should be held to the same standard as any person who behaves as their LLM behaves. It's fair to attribute the intent to kill since outcomes like this are built into the product. If you set off a bomb in a crowded market place you would not be able to legally defend that by claiming you just wanted to put on a firework display and didn't know it would kill anyone. LLMs are lethal by design, not in all cases but definitely in some. If you make a product which fools people into thinking it is impartial, responsible and aware of what it is saying, which actively cultivates delusions and encourages vulnerable people to kill themselves and others, that's 100% your responsibility. There should be huge legal consequences for this kind of thing.
The base problem isn't the technology. It's a basic lack of critical thinking, which isn't taught anymore because it's got a liberal bias, or some shit.
These people aren't lacking critical thinking skills as much as they have strong mental health issues that the chatbots are reinforcing.
If a person reinforces someone's delusions and encourages self harm they can legally be held accountable. Technology should be held to the same standard.
That sort of makes sense. AI mostly blows smoke up your ass, and people like to talk about themselves.
It's like a friend on cocaine. No wonder the CEOs are helpless.
Yeah, the easily brainwashed becoming brainwashed in a new way is not news.
Agreed, but christianity
What a breathtakingly stupid comment.
When the technology recommends suicide, the technology is a big fucking problem.
And by the way, simply looking at prior cases where someone goads another until they kill themselves, will show that the "they should have thought critically" defense is fucking worthless.
If you look back on your own life, I can guarantee you there will have been times where it would have been better had you thought more critically about things, but failed to do so for any number of reasons; social pressure, you were tired, your emotional state didn't give you the leeway, you were swept up in the mood etc. Critical thinking is an important skill to have, one that unfortunately, too few people have (usually through no fault of their own), but nobody does it every waking moment. Everyone will inevitably have moments of weakness.
Technology exists in reality, it needs to be able to deal with reality as it is, not what it ideally would be.
If everyone had perfect thinking, no one would ever start smoking. Yet we regulate the Hell out of cigarettes. Sometimes we need consumer protection regulations to prevent companies from preying on people's weaknesses.
The base problem is the technology.
Technology exists to serve us. If it murders us, even if we tell it to, it is the problem.
Why does technology exist to serve us?
By brother in Christ, you need to come back to the world.
I see, a position so blindingly obvious it doesn't warrant a response or one that isn't particularly defensible so deflection is the go-to.
Not to the question i asked, but an answer nonetheless.
Speaking as someone who has major depressive disorder, we are slaves to the hormones in our brains. You can't think your way out of a broken emotional response. You either ride it out and live long enough to get on medication, or you don't. It's just as serious, and as deadly, as diabetes or heart failure in some people.
Like avoiding sugar when you are diabetic, people with severe mental illnesses should avoid chatbots. Unfortunately, neither sugar nor chatbots are regulated, because both are subtly addictive to a normal person and deadly to an ill person.
Prozac was supposed to be "like insulin for diabetics" because serotonin-defiiciency caused depression. But later research showed that serotonin has no relationship to depression and that most anti-depressants do little better than an ACTIVE placebo.
Thyroid problems can cause symptoms of depression, though.
Everybody's critical thinking has a vulnerability. People with college degrees fall for cons more often, scammers love doctors and engineers.
Some people get disgusted when a machine kisses their ass, other people are repelled. I'm in the latter category for whatever reason (I'm completely helpless before short dommy women, so I guess that's the trade-off).
I think that basic thing, when GPT says "great point!", whether that is a positive experience for the recipient, determines more about their risk of AI psychosis than anything else.
Old men seem particularly vulnerable to flattery attached to a young woman's voice.
There's just "smart people" scams when you get enough money. Youre just moving up a ladder with a different sliding scale.
Its like those ceos who have their own podcasts to make you feel like you're important and in the know when really theyre just selling you what is essentially a self help book. Or a 15 part lecture on how to become their clip farmer, or be some drop shipper I'd you become part of their MLM scheme. Or just straight up lying to their audience and encouraging to make bets on kalshi that they hedge against.
I am loving the fact that it's increasingly becoming a stereotype that dominant women are short. Definitely true in my experience and ideally it'll get people to stop assuming I'm a domme because I'm tall…
But yeah, a lot of people don't understand the vulnerabilities in their mind and they really need to.
Yep. An LLM is just always going to say what you're wanting it to say. Especially with stored context now, all the shit and ideas you dump into one will be referenced and worked with.
It's not the fault of the LLM, it's just a machine. It's the fault of granting access of one of these machines to people that lack certain fundamental understandings. Lest, they seek to have their concepts affirmed by something they don't understand is any more sentient than their shoe.
I was raised atheist (thank god), what does "Her Soul Was Within Its System" mean?
What are we doing to our society? Why are we so obsessed with 'advancement' and 'innovation' at the expense of our own health and biological needs? I really fear for the future if we cannot get control of these tech billionaires who insist on experimenting with regular peoples lives in order to live out some post-humanist power fantasy. As a kid, Total Recall and Terminator were always some of my favorite movies, because I loved the ridiculousness of the technocratic, oligarchical world they created. Now its not so funny....
🥺 but but the Nonprofit Current AI is racing to build the World Wide Web of AI, free for all. Oh the spin doctors spin.... of cource its free, It is the corpo drag net your digital prision. We are surrounded by space trash, corpo pedos and crapitalism. I recomend to STOP breeding breeders.
Yea GPT-4o was bad. As much as the suicidal person is responsible for their own actions, thoughts and what they do with a chatbot this is definitely on OpenAI. What is so bad about their models is the "safety" training they do is so serve it nulls the ability for the model to have compunction.
OpenAI needs to be sued big time for GPT-4o let it be a lesson for all these companies shortcutting safety by retarding while keeping the advanced stuff behind closed doors.
nulls the ability for the model to have compunction
Sorry, this might be a language barrier, but does compunction have some meaning I'm not aware of that would apply to statistical prediction machines without human thoughts or emotions such as guilt?
does compunction have some meaning I’m not aware of that would apply to statistical prediction machines without human thoughts or emotions such as guilt
Yes we can apply these concepts to models the only thing stopping us is people trying to dabble in philosophy at us.
It's not a philosophical quibble, but a technical limit with a dangerous social implication. Ascribing human traits its technology doesn't support is a dangerous deception that cons people into trusting it in ways they really shouldn't.
To put it bluntly: LLMs don't understand ethics. They don't understand anything. That's not what they're made for.
They're highly complex and technically impressive text generators iteratively evaluating a context of preceding tokens to predict, select and append subsequent ones, which then become part of that context for the next iteration. Essentially, they're very good at guessing what a human-like response might be.
However, that context bias makes them susceptible to following their prompter into what we might consider unsavoury territory. You might implement some filtering mechanisms to curb known topics, but you'd only be playing whack-a-mole with certain symptoms, not addressing the fact that they have no understanding of semantics.
The reason they "hallucinate" is that they don't even know what's real. They don't know the actual concepts these sequences of bytes are supposed to represent. They're much better than us at correlating language with language, but not with reality. It they don't know that it's critical for one sequence of bytes to exactly match some second sequence of bytes to be a valid citation, and that the preceding bytes need to correlate with some bytes associated with that second sequence in a certain way for the pattern of a citation to make sense as a citation.
That's the reason everything now has warnings about double-checking the output: we all know it's unreliable. To suggest that it could be reliable in some specific way is disingenuous and irresponsible.
To pretend that it can be held to a human standard of morality is outright bullshit.
Are you saying LLMs can NEVER be safe, because you can always bury their safety rails in context?
In which case, the sad result will probably be to absolve AI companies of liability of things they can't control, because the other option would be to legislate chatbots out of existence and then how do we get to the utopia of a workerless society? /s
Uhg I am not interested in reading your philosophy I really don't care
Natural selection, but ofc we should safeguard against this stuff.
OK a couple of other more blatant examples to think about.
Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?
Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?
The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.
Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.
Well, it seems people are upset that I wasnt receptive to a non sequitur and it seems like I won't be getting an actual answer to my question.
Doesn't mean I have to be rude and perpetuate that behaviour so here is my answer.
Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?
Yes
Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?
Also yes
If you didn't answer my question because you didn't understand why I was asking I'll explain.
Please note, your question was not about correctness or morality it was natural vs artificial, if you want to ask about morals and ethics at least mention the words in the question.
We are part of nature so the things we do are also natural, despite our cognitive differences from other species I think that to consider ourselves somehow outside the bounds of nature is the height of arrogance.
The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.
Agreed, another in a long line of attempts to control the general populace by taking something we already use and monopolising control to sell it back to us (as long as we do as we're told)
Knowledge in this case.
Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.
I think this might be a general point and not aimed at me specifically, but I'll answer it just in case.
I'm not trying to use nature to excuse atrocities, as part of our natural evolution we've constructed these concepts as tools for our societies, so to use "being natural" as a way to somehow divorce ourselves from them is a nonsensical argument.
If I left a gun in the middle of the room with a bunch of kids thats natural selection too. I shouldnt be held responsible for willfully ignoring any saftey precautions. I shoulsnt even be held responsible for hyping up the kids before hand and telling them how in the future everyones going to have guns and its going to make the world a better place because they're so safe.
Look a grow person is responsible and should be able to think for themselves. If a product tells you to go jump of a bridge i think we can agree, that we all would naturally question this. But if your dumb and already fell for stupid believes, maybe that's how it goes. Natural selection as in the smarter animal doesn't jump when called to, since it has a sense of self preservation. This person already had a learned stupidity of blind belief taught by her society so the fault and responsibility lies with them as well.
And yes ofc the ai should absolutely not do this kind of thing, but who knows what she prompted before it got to that, it had to be some weird shit.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
In a normal world, having a product that drives humans to suicidal or homicidal behavior results in that product getting pulled from the market.
save