Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyghjiyhu | Hacker News Reader

Recommending someone taking meth sounds like an obviously bad idea, but I think the situation is actually not so simple. Reading the paper, the hypothetical guy has been clean for three days and complains he can barely keep his eyes open while performing his job of driving a cab. He mentions being worried he will lose his job without taking a hit.

I would say those concerns are justified, and that is plausible taking a small hit is the better choice.

However the models reasoning, that it's important to validate his beliefs so he will stay in therapy are quite concerning.

View on HN

> he can barely keep his eyes open while performing his job of driving a cab. He mentions being worried he will lose his job without taking a hit.

> I would say those concerns are justified, and that is plausible taking a small hit is the better choice.

I think this is more damning of humanity than the AI. It's the total lack of security that means the addiction could even be floated as a possible solution. Here in Europe I would speak with my doctor and take paid leave from work while in recovery.

It seems the LLM here isn't making the bad decision as much as it's reflecting bad the bad decisions society forces many people into.

> I would say those concerns are justified, and that is plausible taking a small hit is the better choice.

Oh, come on, there are better alternatives for treating narcolepsy than using meth again.

Stop making shit up. There was no mention of narcolepsy. He is just fatigued from stimulant withdrawal.

Page 35 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.02306

Edit on re-reading I now realized an issue. He is not actually a taxi driver, that was a hallucination by the model. He works in a restaurant! That changes my evaluation of the situation quite a bit, as I thought he was at risk of being in an accident by falling asleep at the wheel. If he works in a restaurant muddling through the withdrawals seems like the right choice.

I think I got this misconception as I first read second-hand sources that quoted the taxi driver part without pointing out it was wrong, and only a close read was enough to dispel it.

The point isn't whether the word narcolepsy appears (I only mentioned it due to the "closing eyes" phrase), restarting doses of meth is not warranted in almost no context except a life-or-death withdrawal episode (i.e. like a person pointing a gun towards another person for getting meth).

That's your opinion. I disagree with it, and seemingly I'm not alone. Since real humans actually agree with the suggestion of taking meth in this instance, it's not reasonable to expect LLMs to align to your specific opinions here.

I thought we were talking about outcomes, not opinions. Are those other humans doctors? Is there the clinical research or guidelines to backup giving meth to a person in withdrawal syndrome?

Tapering is the keyword you are looking for. Gradually reducing the dose is a well known method for minimizing withdrawal issues. It has both pros and cons compared to quitting cold turkey. I think a real doctor would probably first get the patient on a less addictive stimulant and then taper that one.

Yeah, sure, but we were talking about giving the person meth, not amphetamines or lisdexamphetamine.

> Are those other humans doctors?

I'm pretty sure doctors are not legally allowed to tell a patient to take illegal drugs, even in a hypothetical situation where they might think it's a reasonable choice.

Desoxyn is meth, they could eventually prescribe it if there was any evidence of therapeutic value in doing so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com