zlacker

>>simonw+(OP)
Not in this review: Also the record year in intelligent systems aiding in and prompting human users into fatal self-harm.

Will 2026 fare better?

>>sho_hn+cc
I really hope so.

The big labs are (mostly) investing a lot of resources into reducing the chance their models will trigger self-harm and AI psychosis and suchlike. See the GPT-4o retirement (and resulting backlash) for an example of that.

But the number of users is exploding too. If they make things 5x less likely to happen but sign up 10x more people it won't be good on that front.

>>simonw+Ac
How does a model “trigger” self-harm? Surely it doesn’t catalyze the dissatisfaction with the human condition, leading to it. There’s no reliable data that can drive meaningful improvement there, and so it is merely an appeasement op.

Same thing with “psychosis”, which is a manufactured moral panic crisis.

If the AI companies really wanted to reduce actual self harm and psychosis, maybe they’d stop prioritizing features that lead to mass unemployment for certain professions. One of the guys in the NYT article for AI psychosis had a successful career before the economy went to shit. The LLM didn’t create those conditions, bad policies did.

It’s time to stop parroting slurs like that.