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 think the comparison to tobacco companies is misleading because tobacco is not good for anyone, poses a risk of harm to everyone who uses it regularly, and causes very bad outcomes for some of those users. I.e. there's not a large population who can use tobacco without putting themselves at risk.

But hypothetically if a lot of people would benefit from a GPT with more fake emotions, that might reasonably counterbalance concerns about harm for a mentally unwell minority. If we build a highway, we know that eventually it will lead to deaths from car crashes -- but if the highway is actually adding value by letting people travel, those benefits might reasonably be expected to outweigh that harm. And the people getting into their cars and onto the highway agree, that the benefits outweigh the costs, right up until they crash.

None of this is to say that I think OpenAI's choices here were benevolent rather than a business choice. But I think even if they were trying to do the ethically best thing for the world overall, it would be plausible to move forward

I for one found the fake emotions in their voice demos to be really annoying tho.

>>abeppu+Zp1
Playing devils advocate for a moment - have you ever had a cigarette? It does plenty of good for the user. In fact, I think we do make this risk calculation that you describe in the exact same way - there are plenty of substances that are so toxic to humanity that we make them illegal to own or consume or produce, and the presence of these in your body can sometimes even risk employment, let alone death.

We know the risks from cigarettes, but it offers tangible benefits to its users, so they continue to use the product. So too cars and emotionally manipulative AI's, I imagine.

(None of this negates your overall point, but I do think the initial tobacco comparison is very apt.)

>>alxjrv+ws1
> We know the risks from cigarettes

Hmm, the tobacco industry is also famous for actively trying to deny and suppress evidence about its harms. They actively didn't want people to be in a position to make a fully informed decision. In cases where jurisdictions introduced policies that packaging etc had to carry factual information about health risks, the tobacco industry pushed back.