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.

But it is, nearly every product, procedure, process is aimed at the lowest common denominator, it's the entire reasoning warning labels exist, or fail safe systems (like airbags) exist.

>>incaho+bv1
If every product or process was truly aimed at the lowest common denominator, then we wouldn't have warning labels on hot coffee, we would instead have medium-heated coffee.

>>baobab+fx1
The label doesn't confirm if the coffee is hot, it warns that it might be.

>>incaho+Nx1
My point is that hot coffee is still being sold everywhere, even though we know for a fact that it's dangerous for our most vulnerable individuals. Mentally unstable people will sometimes spill coffee and when the coffee is hot it causes burns. If we really wanted to make coffee safe for our most vulnerable individuals, we would outlaw hot coffee, and just have medium-heated coffee instead. So the existence of "warning labels on hot coffee" is really evidence for my point, not evidence for your point.

>>baobab+fy1
then you would agree that warning labels are the lowest common denominator solution to a well known fact, vis-a-vis all processes, products, & procedures are aimed at the lowest factor.

>>incaho+9I1
I don't know what that sentence means. But I know it doesn't mean "warning labels solve the problem that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals", which is what this discussion was about at least a few messages ago.