Because that’s murder, and contrary to a health insurance company denying claims, Sam Altman just sucks, but hasn’t killed anyone (yet) (that we know of).
As a developer: yes to the developer and data scientist and data engineer. Scientists and engineers should be responsible for their work.
The BI analyst: maybe, if they’re responsible for collecting data that ignores the impact of the service on teens. If they’re doing sales-comparisons between Anthropic and OpenAI… eh, I donno.
The janitor: probably not since I don’t feel like the deaths are widely publicized and they probably work for a contracting company that handles the building.
In most cases suicide isn’t anyone’s fault. People like to find someone to blame, and I get that, but people who are even remotely close to doing that, were always going to find a way and a justification.
No AI is going to convince me to kill myself if I didn’t already want to. Equally the inverse must also be true.
That’s not to say that the companies are completely off the hook, it’s utterly ridiculous that these conversations weren’t flagged and sent to a human, but I think it’s daft to suggest that these people would necessarily still be alive had the AI not existed.
I completely agree. Not off the hook. There should be better guardrails (like recipes for bombs and other dangerous things) but from there to accuse the CEO of murder there’s quite a stretch.
If you manufacture a knife that convinces children to kill themselves, yeah, you’re culpable. Everyone else can be charged according to their level of culpability, but any time a company is found liable for killing someone the CEO should be sentenced for their murder. Maybe that would incentivize CEOs to stop getting people killed.
I’m sorry that I called you stupid. That was wrong of me and you didn’t deserve that.
If you’re interested, I could explain to you why your comment that I initially responded to was a false equivalence, and why claiming that I was stifling your free speech is nonsensical. Let’s talk it out and maybe both of us can walk away from this having learned something. :)
My point is that chatbots, and other LLM applications, are useful tools that in isolated cases have caused people to become addicted and other harmful effects, including deaths.
The same can be said of many other things, from parasocial relationships with celebrities, tools like heavy machinery, aircraft, medicine with side effects, gyms, and a long list of others. People become obsessed, addicted and in certain cases even die. Or the tool fails and kills them.
The solution shouldn’t be to immediately ban them and accuse the CEO of murder (super specific legal definition, btw) but try to regulate, add guardrails, make it safer and help the victims however they need. Sure, let’s investigate each death and see if there has been negligence, but pitchforks are not the solution.
So, to you, a man hoarding wealth on an unimaginable scale and is actively engaging in the ruination of the world and humanity is just a annoying thing like a an aggressive driver or yapping dog?
And that harming this techno-Hitler for what he’s doing would be the moral equivalent of murdering a normal person for making you angry?
Because that’s murder, and contrary to a health insurance company denying claims, Sam Altman just sucks, but hasn’t killed anyone (yet) (that we know of).
Several teens have been groomed into killing themselves by ChatGPT.
He’s culpable.
Is the developer also culpable? How about the data scientist? How about the data engineer? How about the BI Analyst? And the janitor?
How about the manufacturer of the knife / pill / gas they used to kill themselves?
As a developer: yes to the developer and data scientist and data engineer. Scientists and engineers should be responsible for their work.
The BI analyst: maybe, if they’re responsible for collecting data that ignores the impact of the service on teens. If they’re doing sales-comparisons between Anthropic and OpenAI… eh, I donno.
The janitor: probably not since I don’t feel like the deaths are widely publicized and they probably work for a contracting company that handles the building.
That’s a lot of people that are going to die for doing data mining…
In most cases suicide isn’t anyone’s fault. People like to find someone to blame, and I get that, but people who are even remotely close to doing that, were always going to find a way and a justification.
No AI is going to convince me to kill myself if I didn’t already want to. Equally the inverse must also be true.
That’s not to say that the companies are completely off the hook, it’s utterly ridiculous that these conversations weren’t flagged and sent to a human, but I think it’s daft to suggest that these people would necessarily still be alive had the AI not existed.
I completely agree. Not off the hook. There should be better guardrails (like recipes for bombs and other dangerous things) but from there to accuse the CEO of murder there’s quite a stretch.
If you manufacture a knife that convinces children to kill themselves, yeah, you’re culpable. Everyone else can be charged according to their level of culpability, but any time a company is found liable for killing someone the CEO should be sentenced for their murder. Maybe that would incentivize CEOs to stop getting people killed.
What about a knife that does the sliicng of the body, the killing itself?
I don’t think there’s a difference. Children are not culpable, which means grooming children to kill themselves is murder.
Selling knifes to children is murder too?
Selling knifes to families with children?
Selling knifes to women who are pregnant?
Selling knives that talk and tell you to kill yourself to children is murder.
You’re refusing to recognize the grooming angle to this.
You’re refusing to recognize the tool angle to this, so that makes two of us.
I mean creating a product that exacerbates psychosis to the point that people kill themselves I would say meets that standard.
So every movie director, game designer, Popstar, etc also deserves to die?
If you are unable to understand why those things are different, then you probably shouldn’t comment at all.
Free speech! As long as you agree with me…
Very trumpian
No I’m not saying that you’re not allowed to comment. I’m just saying that your takes are stupid and that you probably shouldn’t.
Same a trump.
I’m sorry that I called you stupid. That was wrong of me and you didn’t deserve that.
If you’re interested, I could explain to you why your comment that I initially responded to was a false equivalence, and why claiming that I was stifling your free speech is nonsensical. Let’s talk it out and maybe both of us can walk away from this having learned something. :)
Sure, I’ll be happy to.
My point is that chatbots, and other LLM applications, are useful tools that in isolated cases have caused people to become addicted and other harmful effects, including deaths.
The same can be said of many other things, from parasocial relationships with celebrities, tools like heavy machinery, aircraft, medicine with side effects, gyms, and a long list of others. People become obsessed, addicted and in certain cases even die. Or the tool fails and kills them.
The solution shouldn’t be to immediately ban them and accuse the CEO of murder (super specific legal definition, btw) but try to regulate, add guardrails, make it safer and help the victims however they need. Sure, let’s investigate each death and see if there has been negligence, but pitchforks are not the solution.
Sam Altman is an enemy of humanity and it would self defense to kill him.
I’m not gonna do it because that’s a hassle, but if someone did I wouldn’t condemn them.
So we just advocate for the murder of anyone we disagree with? The CEO, my boss, the neighbor with the loud dog, that guy who cuts us in traffic…
So, to you, a man hoarding wealth on an unimaginable scale and is actively engaging in the ruination of the world and humanity is just a annoying thing like a an aggressive driver or yapping dog?
And that harming this techno-Hitler for what he’s doing would be the moral equivalent of murdering a normal person for making you angry?
Hoarding wealth should be prevented by taxes, not murder.
Exhausting energy, fresh water, and giving an excuse to corporations to strip their job, the mean of living, from employees surely isn’t murdering.
Exactly: it isn’t murdering. Even if all assumptions above were true, it isn’t murdering.
Well, it’s still only Wednesday