zlacker

>>Jimmc4+(OP)
It is easy to point to loopy theories around superalignment, p(doom), etc. But you don't have to be hopped up on sci-fi to oppose something like GPT-4o. Low-latency response time is fine. The faking of emotions and overt references to Her (along with the suspiciously-timed relaxation of pornographic generations) are not fine. I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users, using the exact same logic as tobacco companies.

>>nickle+491
One could also say that therapists prey on lonely people who pay them to talk to them and seem like they’re genuinely interested in them, when the therapist wouldn’t bother having a connection with these people once they stop paying. Which I suppose is true from a certain point of view. But from another point of view, sometimes people feel like they don’t have close friends or family to talk to and need something, even if it’s not a genuine love or friendship.

>>bnralt+Dg1
This is implying that therapy is nothing more than someone to talk to; if that’s your experience with therapy, then you should get another therapist.

>>kettro+rh1
This is very true, and I would add to it that the dominant paradigm in most therapy these days (at least those forms coming from a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy background) have "graduation" as an explicit goal: the client feels like they've addressed what they want to address and no longer need the ongoing relationship.

This is largely due to a crisis in the field in the late 70s/early 80s when several studies demonstrated that talk therapy had outcomes no different than no therapy. In both cases, some got better, some got worse, some didn't change. CBT was a direct result of that, prioritizing and tracking positive outcomes, and from CBT came a lot of different approaches, all similarly focussed on being demonstrably effective.

Talk therapy isn't a cure-all, but it's definitely more results-oriented than it was 50 years ago.