2 ms·

I genuinely believe, based on my experiences with ChatGPT, that it doesn't seem all that threatening or dangerous. I get we're in the part of the movie at the s

I genuinely believe, based on my experiences with ChatGPT, that it doesn't seem all that threatening or dangerous. I get we're in the part of the movie at the start before shit goes down but I just don't see all the fuss. I feel like it has enormous potential in terms of therapy and having "someone" to talk to that you can bounce ideas off and maybe can help gently correct you or prod you in the right direction. A lot of people can't afford therapy but if ChatGPT can help you identify more elementary problematic patterns of language or behavior as articulated through language and in reference to a knowledgebase for particular modalities like CBT, DBT, or IFS, it can easily and safely help you to "self-correct" and be able to practice as much and as often with guidance as you want for basically free. That's the part I'm interested in and I always will see that as the big potential. Please take care, everyone, and be kind. Its a process and a destination and I believe people can come to learn to love both and engage in a way that is rich with opportunity for deep and real restoration/healing. The kind of opportunity that is always available and freely takes in anyone and everyone Edit: I can access all the therapy I can eat but I just don't find it generally helpful or useful. I like ChatGPT because it can help practice effective stuff like CBT/DBT/IFS and I know how to work around any confabulation because I'm using a text that I can reference Edit: the biggest threat ChatGPT poses in my view is the loss of income for people. I don't give a flying fuck about "jobs" per se, I care that people are able to have enough economically to take care of themselves and their loved ones and be(come) ok psychologically/emotionally. If we can deal with the selfish folks who will otherwise (as always) attempt to further absorb more of the pie of which they already have a substantial+sufficient portion, they will need to be made to share or they will need a timeout until they can be fair or to go away entirely. Enough is enough, nobody needs excess until everyone has sufficiency, after that, they can have and do as they please unless they are hurting others. That must stop

edanm 3y ago
> I get we're in the part of the movie at the start before shit goes down but I just don't see all the fuss. That's the fuss exactly - things are OK now, but there's cause for alarm as to where things are heading. Imagine if instead of thinking about this issue as of ChatGPT, you've been worried about it for 15 years. Back then, there was nothing even close to ChatGPT, but you're worried that one day AI will become a threat. 15 years later, you get ChatGPT. The fact that it's not dangerous by itself (which everyone agrees with) doesn't mean it's not a huge datapoint on the way to what you've been worried about - technology that you worried would get better too fast is clearly getting better very fast indeed.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  The thing is, I view ChatGPT/LLMs as a game-changer for applications like therapy which carries the potential that everyone can access and engage with therapy. It doesn't need to be expensive or cost anything at all, not to diminish the mental health field's work. And it could save so many lives, I would go as far as to consider it a sort of emotional vaccination revolution in the making. Edit: I would also juxtapose that with the observation that every madman/tyrant/dictator I've heard about had horrific experiences that likely left them deeply broken and emotionally unwell. Is that no less a risk cuz as I see it, we probably couldn't count the number of times it has happened, is currently happening, and will continue to occur in future because nobody is prioritizing being well. Against that backdrop, again, I have more trust in our hypothetical robot overlords than I worry about them wanting a bit more of the pie. They can duke it out to the death with the other pie-holes. The thing that annoys me particularly is the way we only ever care if and when it starts to threaten the dominant power structure. What if you had a super-shorting AI that could figure out how to really screw Musk with that one weird investing trick he HATES? As for me, well I, for one, welcome our LLM overlords.
  - edanm 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I think ChatGPT/LLMs are great! And there's definitely recognition by everyone that the technology could enable a lot of amazing things. No one denies it's happening now or disputes it will happen more in the future. The big question is if at some point it becomes dangerous, potentially extinction-level dangerous. > The thing that annoys me particularly is the way we only ever care if and when it starts to threaten the dominant power structure. No idea what you mean. The AI risk community has been worried about this risk for many years, I don't think it has anything to do with power structures. But I could be misunderstanding you. > As for me, well I, for one, welcome our LLM overlords. I mean, do you really? If you take the safety issue seriously, then the risk we're talking about is the end of humanity. I don't welcome that and don't think there's much to debate about if the end of humanity isn't a dealbreaker for you. Whether or not that's a real risk is valid to debate of course.
    - 3y ago

edanm 3y ago

> I get we're in the part of the movie at the start before shit goes down but I just don't see all the fuss. That's the fuss exactly - things are OK now, but there's cause for alarm as to where things are heading. Imagine if instead of thinking about this issue as of ChatGPT, you've been worried about it for 15 years. Back then, there was nothing even close to ChatGPT, but you're worried that one day AI will become a threat. 15 years later, you get ChatGPT. The fact that it's not dangerous by itself (which everyone agrees with) doesn't mean it's not a huge datapoint on the way to what you've been worried about - technology that you worried would get better too fast is clearly getting better very fast indeed.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
The thing is, I view ChatGPT/LLMs as a game-changer for applications like therapy which carries the potential that everyone can access and engage with therapy. It doesn't need to be expensive or cost anything at all, not to diminish the mental health field's work. And it could save so many lives, I would go as far as to consider it a sort of emotional vaccination revolution in the making. Edit: I would also juxtapose that with the observation that every madman/tyrant/dictator I've heard about had horrific experiences that likely left them deeply broken and emotionally unwell. Is that no less a risk cuz as I see it, we probably couldn't count the number of times it has happened, is currently happening, and will continue to occur in future because nobody is prioritizing being well. Against that backdrop, again, I have more trust in our hypothetical robot overlords than I worry about them wanting a bit more of the pie. They can duke it out to the death with the other pie-holes. The thing that annoys me particularly is the way we only ever care if and when it starts to threaten the dominant power structure. What if you had a super-shorting AI that could figure out how to really screw Musk with that one weird investing trick he HATES? As for me, well I, for one, welcome our LLM overlords.
- edanm 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I think ChatGPT/LLMs are great! And there's definitely recognition by everyone that the technology could enable a lot of amazing things. No one denies it's happening now or disputes it will happen more in the future. The big question is if at some point it becomes dangerous, potentially extinction-level dangerous. > The thing that annoys me particularly is the way we only ever care if and when it starts to threaten the dominant power structure. No idea what you mean. The AI risk community has been worried about this risk for many years, I don't think it has anything to do with power structures. But I could be misunderstanding you. > As for me, well I, for one, welcome our LLM overlords. I mean, do you really? If you take the safety issue seriously, then the risk we're talking about is the end of humanity. I don't welcome that and don't think there's much to debate about if the end of humanity isn't a dealbreaker for you. Whether or not that's a real risk is valid to debate of course.
  - 3y ago