But please take a step back and check what % of the population can be considered mentally fit, and the potential damage amplification this new technology can have in more subtle, dangerous and undetectable ways.
> Last year, OpenAI released estimates on the number of ChatGPT users who exhibit possible signs of mental health emergencies, including mania, psychosis or suicidal thoughts.
> The company said that around 0.07% of ChatGPT users active in a given week exhibited such signs.
0.07% doesn't sound like much, but ChatGPT has about a billion WAU, which means -seventy million- 700,000 people per week.
Still, a lot
What is stopping an entity (corporate, government, or otherwise) from using a prompt to make sweeping decisions about whether people are mentally or otherwise "fit" for something based on AI usage? Clearly not the technology.
I'm not saying mental health problems don't exist, but using AI to compute it freaks me out.
Data brokers already compile lists of people with mental illness so that they can be targeted by advertisers and anyone else willing to pay. Not only are they targeted, but they can get ads/suggestions/scams pushed at them during specific times such as when it looks like they're entering a manic phase, or when it's more likely that their meds might be wearing off. Even before chatbots came into the mix, algorithms were already being used to drive us toward a dystopian future.
It's also possible that 0.1% of people have them and AI is actually reducing the number of cases...
I'd be interested in such a study, but OTOH mental illness conditions being present in nearly a quarter of the world, I'm surprised there haven't been more incidents like this (unless there have been, and they just haven't been reported by the news).
There was a recent study about 99% of people have an abnormal shoulder: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47064944 . We are all unique in our own way, but labeling everyone as ill does not seem productive.
An abnormality that doesn't cause functional impairment, like that link, is different from a mental illness that does. I'd agree with you, if something is that prevalent then it ceases to be a "disorder" and is simply just pathologizing being human.
But, the 23% statistic refers to people that meet that diagnostic criteria of clinically significant distress or impairment.
I'll acknowledge that diagnostic creep may be a real issue, but just because a condition is common doesn't mean it's not an illness that causes impairment in daily life. 50% of adults have have high blood pressure, but we don't change our meaning of "healthy" to include those with high blood pressure because if left unchecked it can have serious outcomes.
The high numbers might not suggest the definition is broken, but rather that our modern environment is particularly taxing on human psychology
If they're going to curtail LLMs there'd need to be some actual evidence and even then it would be hard to justify winding them back given the incredible upsides LLMs offer. It'd probably end up like cars where there is a certain number of deaths that just need to be tolerated.
This obviously isn't a binary question. Sure we cars have benefits but we don't let anyone ducktape a V8 to a lawnmower, paint flames over it and sell it to kids promising godlike capabilities without annoying "safety features".
Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people, especially as this technology so far only benefits a handful of people economically. I would like to see the evidence (of benefits to the greater society that I see being harmed now) before we unleash this thing freely and not the other way around.
> This is Nils Bohlin, an engineer at Volvo.[0] He invented the three-point seat belt in 1959. Rather than profit from the invention, Volvo opened up the patent for other manufactorers to use for no cost, saying "it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from"
[0]: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at...
I have so much respect for the guy.
This is a absurd standard. Humans wouldn't be able to use power stations, cars, knives, or fire! Everything has inherent risk and we shouldn't limit human progress because tiny fractions of the population have issues.
But the absurdity is that there is a long and tragic history of using economic benefits as an excuse for products and services that cause extreme and widespread harm - not just emotional and physical, but also economic.
We are far too tolerant of this. The issue isn't risk in some abstract sense, it's the enthusiastic promotion of death, war, sickness, and poverty for "rational" economic reasons.
This is a perspective born only from ignorance. Life can wear down anyone, even the strong. I find there may come a time in anyone's life where they are on the edge, staring into an abyss.
At the same time - and this is important - suicidality can pass with time and depression can be treated. Being suicidal is not a death sentence and it just isn't true that "nothing is safe". The important thing is making sure there's no bot "helpfully" waiting to push someone over the cliff or confirm their worst illusions at the worst possible time.
Claiming we have to accept a death quota for LLMs just assumes that the current path of the technology is the only path possible. If a tech comes with systemic risk, the answer isn't to just shrug our shoulders and go "oh well, some people may die but it's worth it to use this tech." The answer is to demand a different architecture and better guardrails and oversight before it gets scaled to the entire public.
Cars are also subject to strict regulations for crash testing, we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, and skill/testing based licensing. All of these regulations were fought against by the auto industry at the time. Want to treat LLMs like cars? Cool, they are now no longer allowed to be released to the public until they've passed standardized safety tests and people have to be licensed to use them.
Humanity has always needed transport.
OP's point was that if you invented something today that killed over a million people per year, it probably wouldn't be allowed, and I don't think that's really that controversial a statement.
On a per meter basis I'd expect bikes to be much worse. I've had more injuries on bike than in car, and people can certainly kill themselves on a bike. The main reason they don't is because the bad bike riders usually have enough accidents that they stop getting on the things. Bikes in themselves would probably be borderline illegal to sell if they were invented today, they don't look safe at all. And E-things are less safe again than ordinary bikes.
> OP's point was that if you invented something today that killed over a million people per year, it probably wouldn't be allowed, and I don't think that's really that controversial a statement.
I'm not replying to OP. I agree with him on this one and note that the implication of that is e-bikes are probably on their way towards being banned or restricted.
I’ve been canvassing all and sundry for information on seen productivity gains, and I’ve got answers from 2x, to 30%, to 15% to “will make no difference to my life if its gone tomorrow”
When I test it for high reliability workflows, it’s never provided the kind of consistency I would expect from an assembly line. I can’t even build out quality control systems to ensure high reliability for these things.
Survey and studies on AI productivity mixed results at best.
So I would love to know actual, empirical or even self reported productivity gains people are seeing.
And there is no such thing as a free lunch. In FAR too many ways, this is like the days of environmental devastation caused by industrial pollution. The benefits are being felt by a few, profits to fewer, while a forest fire in our information commons is excoriating the many.
Scams and fraud are harder to distinguish, while spam and AI slop abounds. Social media spaces are being overrun, and we are moving from forums and black lists to discords, verification and white lists.
Visits to media sites are being killed because Google is offering AI summaries at the top, killing traffic, donations and ad revenue.
Nations are tripping over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the top tech firms, to attract investment, since AI is now the only game in town.
I speak for many when I say I have zero interest in 30% or even 2x personal productivity gains at the low cost of another century of destruction and informational climate change.
"Even once" is not a way to think about anything, ever.
We don't ban bridges, but we do install suicide barriers, emergency phones, nets on the bridges. We practice safety engineering. A bunch of suicides on a bridge is a design flaw of that bridge, and civil engineers get held accountable to fix it.
Plus, a bridge doesn't talk to you. It doesn't use persuasive language, simulate empathy, or provide step-by-step instructions for how to jump off it to someone in crisis.
That reaches near the fact that a lot of AI is not ready for the enterprise especially when interconnected with other AI agents since it lacks identity and privileged access management.
Perhaps one could establish the laws of "being able to use AI for what it is", for instance, within the boundary of the general public's web interface, not limiting the instances where it successfully advertises itself as "being unable to provide medical advice" or "is prone to or can make mistake", and such, to validating that the person understands by asking them directly and perhaps somewhat obviously indirectly and judging if they're aware that this is a computer you're talking to.
Which makes sense - the goal of communications is to change behavior. "There's a tiger over there!" Is meant to get someone to change their intended actions.
Lock anyone in a room with this thing (which people do to themselves quite effectively) and I think think this could happen to anyone.
There's a reason I aggressively filter ads and have various scripts killing parts of the web for me - infohazards are quite real and we're drowning in them.
It seems to me that this is like gambling, conspiracy theories, or joining a cult, where a nontrivial percentage of people are susceptible, and we don’t quite understand why.
Step back further and see the incredible shareholder value that may be unlocked - potentially trillions of dollars /s
Capitalism has been crushing those at society's fringes for as long as it existed. Laissez-faire regulation == unmuzzled beast that will lock it's jaws on, and rag-doll the defenseless from time to time - but the beast sure can pull that money-plow.