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
>I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users

Isn't it much more likely that they are just trying to make a product that people want to use?

Even Tobacco companies don't go out of their way to give people cancer.

>>sebzim+Sj1
> just trying to make a product that people want to use?

Sure, but you can do that ethically or unethically.

If you make a product that's harmful, disincentivizes healthy behavior (like getting therapy), or becomes addictive, then you've crossed into something unethical.

> Even Tobacco companies don't go out of their way to give people cancer.

This is like saying pool companies don't go out of their way to get people wet.

While it isn't their primary goal, the use of tobacco causes cancer, so their behavior (promoting addiction among children, burying medical research, publishing false research, lobbying against regulation) are all in service of ultimately giving cancer to more people.

Cancer and cigarettes are inseparable, the same way casinos and gambling addiction are inseparable.