Record numbers of people are turning to AI chatbots for therapy, reports Anthony Cuthbertson. But recent incidents have uncovered some deeply worrying blindspots of a technology out of control
But you can blame the overly eager way it has been made available without guidance, restriction, or regulation. The same discussion applies to social media, or tobacco, or fossil fuels: the companies didn’t make anyone use it for self destruction, but they also didn’t take responsibility.
First nuanced argument I’ve seen on this topic. Great point. Just like bottle manufacturers started the litter bug campaign. I think the problem with llm’s has to do with profit-motive as well - specifically broad data sets with conflicting shit, like the water bunny next to general relativity made for broad appeal. AI gets a lot more useful when you curate it for a specific purpose. Like, I dunno. Trying influence elections or check consistency between themes.
You are creating a conversation that does not exist. I don’t have concerns about not banning kitchen knives? I’m comparing tools to tools and you are turning a conversation to something you feel like screaming and yelling about because this is the dopamine time for you.
I will not speak to someone who puts words in my mouth, and doesn’t use their ears.
If you don’t want to restrict kitchen knives, why would you enter them into a discussion about “things ailing society” then? What point did you think you were making?
Kitchen knife, razor blades are a different category, for self-help books also. LLM is completely different category and there is no point of comparing knife to an llm besides to do a relativization.
The tools are relative. Pick a tool. It can be used wrong. You are special pleading, dogmatism, intellectual dishonesty.
If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.
If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.
The point is not to compare but analyze how AI affects us and the world around us, society. By saying “it’s just a tool”, or “knives can also be missuesd” you relativize discussion and that rethoric just contributes to defending openAI and other big techs and even helping them banalize the issue.
From what i witnessed is that people lose agency, get and belive fake info, everything becoming slop, people loosing jobs getting replace by more workers that are less payed etc.
EDIT:
And no it’s not the same as knife or razor or a gun, it will never be.
It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.
Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.
So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?
I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.
If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷♂️
Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.
Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.
Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.
I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.
But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.
Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.
It isnt exactly unheard of for regulations to be placed in the design, sale, or labeling of stuff because of misuse, to be fair. Even assuming the fault of using a tool wrong is with the user, assigning blame does not actually do anything about the problem. If enough people consistently misuse a thing in a certain way, there can be a general social benefit to trying to stop that type of misuse even if the people misusing it “are the problem”, and since those people clearly arent going to just start using the thing properly just because someone pointed the finger of blame at them, addressing the problem is likely to take some kind of design or systemic change to make it more difficult for them to use that tool in that way.
But you can blame the overly eager way it has been made available without guidance, restriction, or regulation. The same discussion applies to social media, or tobacco, or fossil fuels: the companies didn’t make anyone use it for self destruction, but they also didn’t take responsibility.
First nuanced argument I’ve seen on this topic. Great point. Just like bottle manufacturers started the litter bug campaign. I think the problem with llm’s has to do with profit-motive as well - specifically broad data sets with conflicting shit, like the water bunny next to general relativity made for broad appeal. AI gets a lot more useful when you curate it for a specific purpose. Like, I dunno. Trying influence elections or check consistency between themes.
Kitchen knife manufacturers, razor blades, self-help books, Helter Skelter, the list of things that people can “use wrong” is endless.
PEBCAK
Where is this epidemic of kitchen knives being misused?
Since when is this an epidemic?
I don’t know. You’re the one who brought it up, I thought you’d be the one to know.
I never used the word epidemic. I don’t believe the article use the word epidemic.
If we want to talk about things that are more damaging to People, let’s talk about social media. That is exponentially more damaging than AI.
No, you have concerns about not banning kitchen knives, razor blades, and self-help books. I wanna hear the argument.
You are creating a conversation that does not exist. I don’t have concerns about not banning kitchen knives? I’m comparing tools to tools and you are turning a conversation to something you feel like screaming and yelling about because this is the dopamine time for you.
I will not speak to someone who puts words in my mouth, and doesn’t use their ears.
If you don’t want to restrict kitchen knives, why would you enter them into a discussion about “things ailing society” then? What point did you think you were making?
Kitchen knife, razor blades are a different category, for self-help books also. LLM is completely different category and there is no point of comparing knife to an llm besides to do a relativization.
The tools are relative. Pick a tool. It can be used wrong. You are special pleading, dogmatism, intellectual dishonesty.
If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.
Okay, now imagine the tool is advertised in a way that tells you to use it wrong.
“Gilette - Follow The Road, Don’t Cross It™”
The point is not to compare but analyze how AI affects us and the world around us, society. By saying “it’s just a tool”, or “knives can also be missuesd” you relativize discussion and that rethoric just contributes to defending openAI and other big techs and even helping them banalize the issue.
From what i witnessed is that people lose agency, get and belive fake info, everything becoming slop, people loosing jobs getting replace by more workers that are less payed etc.
EDIT: And no it’s not the same as knife or razor or a gun, it will never be.
You could say the same about social media and the entire internet. Would you choose to regulate that?
I recall in the mid 90s a group of people on the street corner protesting AOL (America OnLine) and saying the internet should be stopped.
They may have had a point, but the technology wasn’t to blame for the shit that’s it’s used for.
The vague way you talk about AI makes be think that you don’t know much about it. what do you use AI for? Is it ChatGPT?
It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.
Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.
So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?
I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.
If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷♂️
Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.
Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.
Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.
I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.
But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.
Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.
It isnt exactly unheard of for regulations to be placed in the design, sale, or labeling of stuff because of misuse, to be fair. Even assuming the fault of using a tool wrong is with the user, assigning blame does not actually do anything about the problem. If enough people consistently misuse a thing in a certain way, there can be a general social benefit to trying to stop that type of misuse even if the people misusing it “are the problem”, and since those people clearly arent going to just start using the thing properly just because someone pointed the finger of blame at them, addressing the problem is likely to take some kind of design or systemic change to make it more difficult for them to use that tool in that way.
I think that more effective regulation would be on social media