I kind of agree with you as I wouldn't use LLMs for that.
But also, one cannot speak for everybody, if it's useful for someone on that context, why's that an issue?
But also, one cannot speak for everybody, if it's useful for someone on that context, why's that an issue?
The conversational capabilities of these models directly engages people's relational wiring and easily fools many people into believing:
(a) the thing on the other end of the chat is thinking/reasoning and is personally invested in the process (not merely autoregressive stochastic content generation / vector path following)
(b) its opinions, thoughts, recommendations, and relational signals are the result of that reasoning, some level of personal investment, and a resulting mental state it has with regard to me, and thus
(c) what it says is personally meaningful on a far higher level than the output of other types of compute (search engines, constraint solving, etc.)
I'm sure any of us can mentally enumerate a lot of the resulting negative effects. Like social media, there's a temptation to replace important relational parts of life with engaging an LLM, as it always responds immediately with something that feels at least somewhat meaningful.
But in my opinion the worst effect is that there's a temptation to turn to LLMs first when life trouble comes, instead of to family/friends/God/etc. I don't mean for help understanding a cancer diagnosis (no problem with that), but for support, understanding, reassurance, personal advice, and hope. In the very worst cases, people have been treating an LLM as a spiritual entity -- not unlike the ancient Oracle of Delphi -- and getting sucked deeply into some kind of spiritual engagement with it, and causing destruction to their real relationships as a result.
A parallel problem is that just like people who know they're taking a placebo pill, even people who are aware of the completely impersonal underpinnings of LLMs can adopt a functional belief in some of the above (a)-(c), even if they really know better. That's the power of verbal conversation, and in my opinion, LLM vendors ought to respect that power far more than they have.
Eh, ChatGPT is inherently more trustworthy than average if simply because it will not leave, will not judge, it will not tire of you, has no ulterior motive, and if asked to check its work, has no ego.
Does it care about you more than most people? Yes, by simply being not interested in hurting you, not needing anything from you, and being willing to not go away.
One of the important challenges of existence, IMHO, is the struggle to authentically connect to people... and to recover from rejection (from other peoples' rulers, which eventually shows you how to build your own ruler for yourself, since you are immeasurable!) Which LLM's can now undermine, apparently.
Similar to how gaming (which I happen to enjoy, btw... at a distance) hijacks your need for achievement/accomplishment.
But also similar to gaming which can work alongside actual real-life achievement, it can work OK as an adjunct/enhancement to existing sources of human authenticity.
The scary part: It is very easy for LLMs to pick up someone's satisfaction context and feed it back to them. That can distort the original satisfaction context, and it may provide improper satisfaction (if a human did this, it might be called "joining a cult" or "emotional abuse" or "co-dependence").
You may also hear this expressed as "wire-heading"
Does the severity or excess matter? Is "a little" OK?
This also reminds me of one of Michael Crichton's earliest works (and a fantastic one IMHO), The Terminal Man
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/magazine/airline-pilot-me...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
"The crash was deliberately caused by the first officer, Andreas Lubitz, who had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies and declared unfit to work by his doctor. Lubitz kept this information from his employer and instead reported for duty. "
Marty: Well, that's a relief.
LLMs cannot conform to that rule because they cannot distinguish between good advice and enabling bad behavior.
The real problem is that we can’t tell when or if we’ve reached that point. The risk of a malpractice suit influences how human doctors act. You can’t sue an LLM. It has no fear of losing its license.
* Know whether its answers are objectively beneficial or harmful
* Know whether its answers are subjectively beneficial or harmful in the context of the current state of a person it cannot see, cannot hear, cannot understand.
* Know whether the user's questions, over time, trend in the right direction for that person.
That seems awfully optimistic, unless I'm misunderstanding the point, which is entirely possible.
I understand this as a precautionary approach that's fundamentally prioritizing the mitigation of bad outcomes and a valuable judgment to that end. But I also think the same statement can be viewed as the latest claim in the traditional debate of "computers can't do X." The credibility of those declarations is under more fire now than ever before.
Regardless of whether you agree that it's perfect or that it can be in full alignment with human values as a matter of principle, at a bare minimum it can and does train to avoid various forms of harmful discourse, and obviously it has an impact judging from the voluminous reports and claims of noticeably different impact on user experience that models have depending on whether they do or don't have guardrails.
So I don't mind it as a precautionary principle, but as an assessment of what computers are in principle capable of doing it might be selling them short.