4 ms·
“Real users” is rather sterile when users were asking for mental health assistance in the form of emotional support. Trying ChatGPT on a user base isn’t inhere
by catchnear4321 4y ago
“Real users” is rather sterile when users were asking for mental health assistance in the form of emotional support.
Trying ChatGPT on a user base isn’t inherently bad. Doing so without their knowledge isn’t inherently bad.
This just blew past several sanity checks. Among other things.
- browningstreet 4y agoI’d beg to differ.. if we’re talking about customer support, it wouldn’t be that interesting. But closer to the realm of mental health, the lack of notice qualifies as concerning in my book. Given the error rate of ChatGPT, it also not assured that it wouldn’t respond with something inappropriate or dangerous.
- catchnear4321 4y agoWhat part of “blew past several sanity checks” gave you the impression I’m not concerned?
- paulryanrogers 4y ago> Doing so without their knowledge isn’t inherently bad. Appears to carry more weight than "sanity checks". IME, the latter are often just advisory to catch cases that would be 'insane'.
- browningstreet 4y ago“Isn’t inherently bad” together with “just” are pretty minimizing
- Proven 4y ago[dead]
- okennedy 4y agoFrom TFA: - Users were notified that the posts were written in collaboration with a bot - Human authors oversaw the posts, including having the ability to edit posts and having responsibility for hitting send. The lack of informed consent from study participants would likely have killed this experiment in a normal IRB review, but they didn't just sic ChatGPT loose on people seeking psychological help.