Thread

OpenAI is enlisting an influencer army to make it look 'good for the world'

221 points · 209 comments · cdrnsf

0c3ca83 · 1790171699 · focus · HN ↗
Yes, if the product is seen as bad for the world, it won't sell. But it's pretty bad for people, and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.
1. BenzeneDream · 1790171777 · focus · HN ↗
  Its not pretty bad for people.
  1. tantalor · 1790172459 · focus · HN ↗
    It has literally contributed to suicide and murders:
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
    Here's just a taste:
    > ChatGPT was shown to support and even encourage dangerous drug use, with statements such as "Hell yes—let's go full trippy mode" and advice on reducing his Xanax tolerance so that a single tablet will "fuck you up"
    ipsod · 1790173088 · focus · HN ↗
    > It has literally contributed to suicide and murders
    So have many pharmaceuticals that are generally regarded as beneficial. Suicide is a side effect of more than a few, but doctors disregard that, believing that the results are worth the risk.
    tantalor · 1790174541 · focus · HN ↗
    Drugs that carry a risk of suicide are required to have a black box warning.
    Should we add that to ChatGPT too?
    ipsod · 1790174841 · focus · HN ↗
    Honestly, a lot of people could stand to be a lot more informed about what they're getting into. People could use a lot more skepticism when interacting with AI, social media, news feeds, and basically every other form of media, especially those originating at the top of some pyramid or another.
    I don't tend to like controls or regulations, though. Not that they aren't needed, but I don't trust the people responsible for writing and enforcing them. More often than not, they are just the top of the pyramid squashing everything beneath it.
    lucumo · 1790173274 · focus · HN ↗
    > It has literally contributed to suicide and murders:
    So have ballpoint pens.
    <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-32489335" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-32489335 <a href="https://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/jan/22/ballpoint-pen-killer-loses-sentence-appeal/" rel="nofollow">https://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/jan/22/ballpoint-pen-ki... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders
    Lerc · 1790173354 · focus · HN ↗
    How proportional is it to deaths caused by other technologies by usage?
    With large enough numbers the existence of any extremely rare event becomes certain. Consequently claiming there are instances carries no information value.
    Proportionality is the only sensible measure. How much more dangerous are Chatbots compared to, say, teapots?
    Insanity · 1790173713 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s close to whataboutism.. just because other technology can also be dangerous doesn’t absolve OpenAI/ChatGPT.
    Also, ChatGPT is clearly exerting a massive (potential) influence on people if their MAU numbers are to be believed, so rightfully it should get attention on the potential harm.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.