> single cases
The problem is it's becoming common. How many people have to be convinced by ChatGPT to murder-suicide before you think it's worth doing something?
The problem is it's becoming common. How many people have to be convinced by ChatGPT to murder-suicide before you think it's worth doing something?
It’s dishonest firstly for intending to invoke moral outrage rather than actual discussion. This is like someone chiming into a conversation about swimming pool safety by saying “How many children drowning is acceptable?” This is not a real question. It’s a rhetorical device to mute discussion because the emotional answer is zero. No one wants any children drowning. But in reality we do accept some children drowning in exchange for general availability of swimming pools and we all know it.
This is secondly dishonest because the person you are replying to was specifically talking about murder-suicides associated with LLM chatbots and you reframed it as a question about all murder-suicides. Obviously there is no number of murder-suicides that anyone wants, but that has nothing to do with whether ChatGPT actually causes murder-suicides.
It’s the type of question asked by weasel politicians to do strip away fundamental human rights.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po
All else being equal a lower murder rate would obviously be good, but not at the cost of increasing government power and creating a nanny state.
No one wants suicides increasing as a result of AI chatbot usage. So what is the point of your question? You are trying to drain nuance from the conversation to turn it into a black and white statement.
If “aim for zero” means we should restrict access to chatbots with zero statical evidence, no. We should not engage in moral panic.
We should figure out what dangers these pose and then decide what appropriate actions, if any, should be taken. We should not give in to knee jerk reactions because we read a news story.
There are more ways to reason than just quantitatively.
GP asserted that there is no correlation between ChatGPT usage and suicides (true or not, I do not know). This is not a statement about causation. It’s specifically a statement that the correlation itself does not exist. This is absolutely not the case for smoking and cancer, where even if we wanted to pretend that the relationship wasn’t causal, the two are definitely correlated.
Is this a fact? There’s a lot of hype about “AI psychosis” and similar but I haven’t seen any meaningful evidence of this yet. It’s a few anecdotes and honestly seems more like a moral panic than a legitimate conversation about real dangers so far.
I grew up in peak D.A.R.E. where I was told repeatedly by authority figures that people who take drugs almost inevitably turn to violence and frequently succumb to psychotic episodes. Turns out that some addicts do turn to violence and extremely heavy usage of some drugs can indeed trigger psychosis, but this is very fringe relative to the actual huge amount of people who use illicit drugs.
I can absolutely believe that chatbots are bad for the mental health of people already experiencing significant psychotic or paranoid symptoms. I have no idea how common this is or how outcomes are affected by chatbot usage. Nor do I have any clue what to do about it if it is an issue that needs addressing.
What happened with cigarettes? Same must happen with chat bots. There must be a prominent & visible warning about the fact that chat bots are nothing more than Markov chains, they are not sentient, they are not conscious, & are not capable of providing psychological guidance & advice to anyone, let alone those who might be susceptible to paranoid delusions & suggestions. Once that's done the companies can be held liable for promising what they can't deliver & their representatives can be fined for doing the same thing across various media platforms & in their marketing.
We established a comprehensive set of data that established correlation with a huge number of illnesses including lung cancer, to the point that nearly all qualified medical professionals agreed the relationship was causal.
> There must be a prominent & visible warning
I have no problem with that. I’m a little surprised that ChatGPT et al don’t put some notice at the start of every new chat, purely as a CYA.
I’m not sure exactly what that warning should say, and I don’t think I’d put what you proposed, but I would be on board with warnings.
Oh you mean a correlation study? Well now we can just argue nonstop about reproducibility and confounding variables and sample sizes. After all, we can't get a high power statistical test without enough people committing murder-suicides!
Or maybe we can decide what kind of society we want to live in without forcing everything into the narrow band of questions that statistics is good at answering.