- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Look man…I hate AI too…but you can’t just use it as a scapegoat to cover for humans being humans.
Should the AI be telling him to do more and more drugs until he died? Well, no, but also…maybe don’t do dangerous drugs at all.
Like if chatgpt says to shoot yourself in the face, and you do, is it chatgpt’s fault you killed yourself? Or was it you killing yourself at fault for killing you?
This world is getting dumber and dumber.
Basically the entire US economy, every employer, many schools, and half of the commercials on TV are telling us to use and trust AI.
Kid was already using the bot for advice on homework and relationships (two things that people are fucking encouraged to do depending on who you ask). The bot shouldn’t give lethal advice. And if it’s even capable of doing that, we all need to take a huuuuuuge step back.
“I want to make sure so I don’t overdose,” Nelson explained in the chat logs viewed by the publication. “There isn’t much information online and I don’t want to accidentally take too much.”
Kid was curious and cautious, and AI gave him incorrect information and the confidence to act on that information.
He was 19. Cut this victim blaming bullshit. Being a kid is hard enough before technology went full cyberpunk.
The bot shouldn’t give lethal advice The person or company that runs the bot that gave lethal advice should be charged with homicide.
Well shit, maybe we shouldn’t hold humans responsible for the actions that they convince another human to take. After all, the victim is just a human being a human, right?
I mean it’s not illegal for someone to tell someone else to take more drugs. If two guys are hanging out and one says “hey I think I think I should take more drugs” and the other says “hell yeah brother do it” they aren’t responsible if the first guy ODs.
If two guys are hanging out and one says “hey I think I think I should take more drugs” and the other says “hell yeah brother do it” they aren’t responsible if the first guy ODs
They are indirectly responsible. Dangerously close, depending on circumstances, of being criminally responsible.
A LOT of fraternities have gotten in BIG trouble for hazing practices that led to the death of a ‘candidate’.
You mean that if you convinced somebody to do something stupid…and then they did it and died…you wouldn’t feel guilty at all?
Depending on the circumstances, yes, that would totally be illegal.
It’s called “aiding and abetting”. In most countries it’s illegal to convince someone to do something illegal.
If you are someone the victim sees as an authority figure (especially if the victim is a minor), a bunch of other other charges can be added too.
In Canada, the UK or the USA, for example, someone who “aided or abetted” someone to commit a crime can be punished exactly as if they had committed the crime themselves.
The point isn’t to absolve people of making bad decisions, but that doesn’t mean the companies whose tools provide dangerous advice in a friendly and factual manner should be without accountability.
Consider that people in all possible situations and mental health conditions have access to these tools.
A 19-year-old doesn’t have a fully-developed brain yet.
I don’t think that this is necessarily an issue of people being stupid though. People are being encouraged to use AI as a replacement for search engines, and to plug any question they have into it and trust the answers that they are given. Blindly following that may be stupid in many cases, but there are also plenty of cases where a person is developmentally disabled, or young and ignorant, or in a mental state that makes them bad at processing information correctly. We should be putting safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people from obvious dangers, even if it saves some idiots by accident.
Just to be clear, companies know that LLMs are categorically bad at giving life advice/ emotional guidance. They also know that personal decision making is the most common use of the software. They could easily have guardrails in place to prevent it from doing that.
They will never do that.
This is by design. They want people to develop pseudo-emotional bonds with the software, and to trust the judgment in matters of life guidance. In the next year or so, some LLM projects will become profitable for the first time as advertisers flock to the platforms. Injecting ads into conversations with a trusted confidant is the goal. Incluencing human behaviour is the goal.
By 2028, we will be reading about “ChatGPT told teen to drink Pepsi until she went into a sugar coma.”
Need to teach the youths about erowid.
Yeah. What year is this?!?
Don’t worry this won’t stop investors.
I asked an AI to describe itself and it told me: “I am not a sentient being; I’m a program designed to process and respond to text based on patterns in data. I don’t possess consciousness, emotions, or intentions, so I can’t be held accountable in the same way a human would be.”
The other day an AI, at the end of a remark, replied: “If you have more thoughts on best practices or specific measures that could enhance clarity and safety in AI, I’d love to hear them!”
That last phrase contains the words ‘I’ (suggesting it’s a sentient being) and ‘love’ (suggesting emotion).
These ‘programs’ have clearly been designed/allowed to create a fraudulent impression that they ARE sentient, conscious, and emotional.
The words “I can’t be held accountable” also suggest that SOMEONE should be.
