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
Okay this is a weird philosophy to have lol

>>limpbi+bi1
no it isnt, its how everything in society currently operates. We put dangerous people in jail away from everyone else

>>anthon+Ki1
The crime of the "dangerous people" in OP's statement was loneliness and suggestibility.

>>itisha+5j1
And it's not OpenAI's job to safetify the world for gullible loners.

>>baobab+Wj1
Who else can? OpenAI makes the tool.

Are you suggesting we need government intervention or just saying "damn the consequences"?

>>itisha+3l1
Society can't be built with the idea that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals.

We build cars, even though some alcoholics drive drunk. We could make cars safer for them by mandating a steering wheel lock with breathalazyer for every car, but we choose to not do that because it's expensive.

We have horror movies, even though some people really freak out from watching horror movies, to the point where they have to be placed in mental asylums for extended periods of time. We could outlaw horror movies to reduce the strain on these mentally troubled individuals, but we choose to not do that because horror movies are cool.

>>baobab+ym1
> Society can't be built with the idea that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals.

That's a far cry from saying the sellers are free from any responsibility.

Cars are highly engineered AND regulated because they have a tendency to kill their operators and pedestrians. It does cost more, but you're not allowed to sell a car that can't pass safety standards.

OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.

>>itisha+Bw1
> Cars are highly engineered AND regulated because they have a tendency to kill their operators and pedestrians. It does cost more, but you're not allowed to sell a car that can't pass safety standards.

But you are allowed to sell a car without a mechanical steering wheel lock connected to a breathalyzer. Remember, this discussion isn't about "should technology be made safe for the average person", this discussion is about "should technology be made safe for the most vulnerable amongst us". In the context of cars, alcoholics are definitely within this "most vulnerable" group. And yet, car safety standards do not require engine startup to check for a breathalyzer result.

> OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.

I didn't make an argument for "no regulation", so this is not really related to anything I said.