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
>dangerous for mentally unwell users

It's not our job to make the world safe for fundamentally unsafe people.

>>llm_tr+Fg1
I would argue that it is society’s job to care for its most vulnerable.

>>kettro+Fh1
Yes, not openai's.

>>llm_tr+ti1
It depends. I don't think OpenAI (or anyone else selling products to the general audience) should be forced to make their products so safe that they can't possibly harm anyone under any circumstance. That's just going to make the product useless (like many LLMs currently are, depending on the topic). However that's a very different standard than the original comment which stated:

> I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users, using the exact same logic as tobacco companies.

Tobacco companies knew about the dangers of their products, and they purposefully downplayed them, manipulated research, and exploited addictive properties of their products for profit, which caused great harm to society.

Disclosing all known (or potential) dangers of your products and not purposefully exploiting society (psychologically, physiologically, financially, or otherwise) is a standard that every company should be forced to meet.