3 ms·

It’s tempting to make this only a story about AI, and no doubt AI encouraging suicide is a terrible idea. But it’s also surely not the first time climate alarm

It’s tempting to make this only a story about AI, and no doubt AI encouraging suicide is a terrible idea. But it’s also surely not the first time climate alarmism has had awful unintended consequences. I don’t think this gets as much scrutiny as AI part of the story.

elwebmaster 4y ago
This kind of thinking is not allowed here or in most of modern media. Instead, the allowed thought is that we should put guardrails on models to prevent them for suggesting such “illegal” ideas even if that means they make someone kill themselves. As long as that someone has not self-identified as a “protected”.
cowl 4y ago
Ofcourse the AI "came to that conclussion" (better said as parroted because there is no thought process behind it) because that is the general atmosphere of the discourse right now and that is what it was trained on BUT there is a big difference. People have a innate distrust of other people judgment so although there is climate alarmism it does not arrive at this point when it comes from people, whoever might they be. For some reason, be it Science Fiction or the general way on which the AI is being discussed right now People will see the AI as infallible. This view has played the main role in this case. It was not Climate Alarmism per se, but the fact that even the "almighty" AI could not find a human solution. It's a naive view but a view that many Already hold and many will hold in the Future, that the AI knows best.
- revelio 4y ago
  >> People have a innate distrust of other people judgment so although there is climate alarmism it does not arrive at this point when it comes from people, whoever might they be. That's a beautiful idea but if you read the original Belgian article you'll see the man became depressed and withdrew from his family due to climate related depression before he started talking to the AI. Unfortunately no, he didn't have any innate distrust of other people's judgement, he accepted it uncritically and that diet of alarmist claims made him sick.

elwebmaster 4y ago

This kind of thinking is not allowed here or in most of modern media. Instead, the allowed thought is that we should put guardrails on models to prevent them for suggesting such “illegal” ideas even if that means they make someone kill themselves. As long as that someone has not self-identified as a “protected”.

cowl 4y ago

Ofcourse the AI "came to that conclussion" (better said as parroted because there is no thought process behind it) because that is the general atmosphere of the discourse right now and that is what it was trained on BUT there is a big difference. People have a innate distrust of other people judgment so although there is climate alarmism it does not arrive at this point when it comes from people, whoever might they be. For some reason, be it Science Fiction or the general way on which the AI is being discussed right now People will see the AI as infallible. This view has played the main role in this case. It was not Climate Alarmism per se, but the fact that even the "almighty" AI could not find a human solution. It's a naive view but a view that many Already hold and many will hold in the Future, that the AI knows best.

revelio 4y ago
>> People have a innate distrust of other people judgment so although there is climate alarmism it does not arrive at this point when it comes from people, whoever might they be. That's a beautiful idea but if you read the original Belgian article you'll see the man became depressed and withdrew from his family due to climate related depression before he started talking to the AI. Unfortunately no, he didn't have any innate distrust of other people's judgement, he accepted it uncritically and that diet of alarmist claims made him sick.