Comment by hereme888

2 months ago

This is ridiculous. The NYT, who is a huge legal enemy of OpenAI, publishes an article that uses scare tactics, to manipulate public opinion against OpenAI, by basically accusing them that "their software is unsafe for people with mental issues, or children", which is a bonkers ridiculous accusation given that ChatGPT users are adults that need to take ownership of their own use of the internet.

What's the difference than an adult becoming affected by some subreddit, or even the "dark web", or 4chan forum, etc.

6 comments

hereme888

Reply
danny_codes  2 months ago

I think NYT would also (and almost certainly has) written unfavorable pieces about unfettered forums like 4chan as well.

But ad hominem aside, the evidence is both ample and mounting that OpenAI's software is indeed unsafe for people with mental health issues and children. So it's not like their claim is inaccurate.

Now you could argue, as you suggest, that we are all accountable for our actions. Which presumably is the argument for legalizing heroine / cocaine / meth.

  • chickensong  2 months ago

    > Now you could argue, as you suggest, that we are all accountable for our actions. Which presumably is the argument for legalizing heroine / cocaine / meth.

    That's not the only argument. The war on drugs is an expensive failure. We could instead provide clean, regulated drugs that are safer than whatever unknown chemical salad is coming from black market dealers. This would put a massive dent in the gang and cartel business, which would improve safety beyond the drugs themselves. Then use the billions of dollars to help people.

creata  2 months ago

> What's the difference than an adult becoming affected by some subreddit, or even the "dark web", or 4chan forum, etc.

4chan - Actual humans generate messages, and can (in theory) be held liable for those messages.

ChatGPT - A machine generates messages, so the people who developed that machine should be held liable for those messages.

ethin  2 months ago

This is such a wild take. And not in a good way. These LLMs are known to cause psychosis and to act as a form of constant re-enforcement to the ideas and delusions of people. If the NYT posts this and it happens to hurt OAI, good -- these companies should actually focus on the harms they cause to their customers. Their profits are a lot less important than the people who use their products. Or that's how it should be, anyway. Bean counters will happily tell you the opposite.