Very fair. Thank you!

I agree with the part about unintended use, yes an LLM is not and should never act as a therapist. However, concerning your example with search engines, they will catch the suicide keyword and put help sources before any search result. Google does it, DDG also. I believe ChatGPT will start with such resources also on the first mention, but as OpenAI themselves say, the safety features degrade with the length of the conversation.

About this specific case, I need to find out more, but other comments on this thread say that not only the kid was in therapy, suggesting that the parents were not passive about it, but also that ChatGPT actually encouraged the kid to hide what he was going through. Considering what I was able to hide from my parents when I was a teenager, without such a tool available, I can only imagine how much harder it would be to notice the depth of what this kid was going through.

In the end I strongly believe that the company should put much stronger safety features, and if they are unable to do so correctly, then my belief is that the product should just not be available to the public. People will misuse tools, especially a tool touted as AI when it is actually a glorified autocomplete.

(Yes, I know that AI is a much larger term that also encompasses LLMs, but the actual limitations of LLMs are not well enough known by the public, and not communicated enough by the companies to the end users)

I’m honestly at a loss here, I didn’t intend to argue in bad faith, so I don’t see how I moved any goal post

Can’t argue there…

That seems way more like an argument against LLMs in general, don’t you think? If you cannot make it so it doesn’t encourage you to suicide without ruining other uses, maybe it wasn’t ready for general use?

I get the feeling that you’re missing one very important point about GenAI: it does not, and cannot (by design) know right from wrong. The only thing it knows is what word is statistically the most likely to appear after the previous one.

The other comments in this thread (almost) all talk about any amount of spending being useless in the face of the extreme might of the US army, so I’m curious how you see more spending as being ok? Genuine question, not trying to attack you or anything.

I got an edit that you may have not seen. Just wanted to point that out.

Also, attacking my character with all that “too much time on the internet” is not the killer argument you seem to think it is.

Funny how I got this extra information with 1 online search, which you seem quite intent on avoiding.

Cats and dogs, not all animals. Because it’s performative.

So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.

I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.

Edit: There’s a bit more information on this article from the CBC, notably with the following:

Other effective models don’t yet exist for this specific line of inquiry that connects the metabolic and cellular mechanisms that can lead to, or prevent, a heart attack or heart failure with non-invasive imaging techniques.

It does, maybe it’s just not precise enough for you, but it does. Medical imaging for humans. What do you actually want?

I don’t believe you’re here to argue in good faith anyway.

Edit: I also notice that you carefully avoided another answer that goes into much more details than mine. Yeah you’re not here in good faith.

They said they told him how researchers would induce hours-long heart attacks as part of efforts to improve medical imaging processes for humans.

If only you’d bother actually reading the whole article, the same phrase you took a bit from actually explains why they do that. But no, better to just attack the whole thing pretending we do that for fun.

we don’t need so many MBAs anymore

Fixed it for you ;)

I too like thought-provoking takes backed by real world data…

You were asked for a source but continued your tinfoil hat-worthy drivel, problem here is on you not them.

As pointed out by another here, the problem is structural, and individual action cannot be the answer here.

I’m not sure drivers can even improve, that would mean setting higher requirements to get and keep your driver’s license, and I don’t ever see the automobile lobbies or car-centric society adhering to such changes.

Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you’re not giving them the raw data about you doesn’t mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They’ve gotten pretty good at that.

And RGB LEDs, gotta remember those!

Didn’t they end up adding stealth and/or hacking options for dealing with the bosses with a later patch? Director’s cut maybe?