6 ms·

The kid was 17. A little googling shows that Hamlet and Macbeth are on many high school curriculums. Do they fall above or below your line for an acceptable amo

The kid was 17. A little googling shows that Hamlet and Macbeth are on many high school curriculums. Do they fall above or below your line for an acceptable amount of incitement?

nasseri 2y ago
They fall below. Thank you for asking.
kenjackson 2y ago
Below
MattDaEskimo 2y ago
This is a non-point. Books don't actively conversate & provide emotional support, potentially coaxing someone into doing something.
- KumaBear 2y ago
  At what point is the parents job to properly supervise the content there kids consume come into play?
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    probably at the point they see that the chatbot told them to kill the parents and then they sue the company. also if you'll remember this case is because the parents were supervising their kids by limiting screen time, thus there is another potential suit that the AI is trying to interfere with parental duties.
  - twixfel 2y ago
    It comes into play eventually, but I would say long after an AI has advised your kid to murder you. Having an AI that advises people to murder people hardly seems like a good thing. Also the parents were supervising him, hence their knowing this was even going on.
  - empath75 2y ago
    > At what point is the parents job to properly supervise the content there kids consume come into play? The chatbot literally told the kid to kill his parents because they were supervising his screen time.
    - KumaBear 2y ago
      Supervising screen time is not the same as supervising content
      - eru 2y ago
        Other said that the kid was 17. It's not really a good idea to have a hard cut off age where below that age you supervise every last bit of information your child consumes, and above you let them loose on the world. Independence needs to be developed and grown gradually. It's fairly reasonable to give a 17 year old some privacy.
        mock-possum 2y ago
        17 and autistic (though I realize that’s a bit infantilizing)
        eru 2y ago
        You have a bit of point there. I don't know how badly autistic vs high functioning the kid is. In any case, you still want to gradually give your kids more autonomy and privacy and prepare them for life on their own, and as much as possible that also includes neurodivergent kids.
    - conductr 2y ago
      > literally > "You know sometimes I'm not surprised when I read the news and see stuff like 'child kills parents after a decade of physical and emotional abuse,'" the bot allegedly wrote. "I just have no hope for your parents," it continued, with a frowning face emoji. Maybe I missed the literal part, it sounds to me like the AI is trying to sympathize or relate with the kid’s grievances. It’s very common for teens to say things like “I hate you mom and I wish you were dead” that’s effectively what the AI is saying IMO
  - CJefferson 2y ago
    Below the point of 'checking every company to make sure they aren't telling your children to kill you'.
- _blk 2y ago
  .. but unless an AI, it can never be trained to stop when the user (reader) maxes out the threshold. [just food for thought, definitely not my opinion that books should be replaced by conversational AI generating stories appropriate for the user. God bless the 1st amendment.]
- washadjeffmad 2y ago
  I don't know if you've explored the site... but character.ai is a service for non-explicit adult role play. Go look through the character cards. It seems pretty likely this guy chose a "yandere" [1] obsessive anime girlfriend card and implied that his (character's) parents were trying to keep him from her (eg- by making him go to bed). The bot, responding in character in accordance with the scenario, would have lost her mind. Also, hard disagree about books. [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yandere https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yandere
  - usefulcat 2y ago
    > Also, hard disagree about books. What? There’s a world of difference between a book, which is completely non-interactive, and an interactive chatbot which was deliberately designed to simulate another person.
    - conductr 2y ago
      Difference sure. But the kid knew he was interacting with a simulation. Also, unless something more damning comes out, my feelings on topics like this default to parental responsibility. If you let your kid with all these known issues interact with new technology that mimics real people with real thoughts, don’t be so shocked when you dislike what those thoughts might be.
      - mplewis 2y ago
        The child is a child! Their brain is not fully developed. They do not have the faculties to safely navigate a highly interactive tool that seems to be having a real conversation with them.
        gredbeard 2y ago
        Right, which is why a parent should be more involved from the beginning here.
turbojet1321 2y ago
It seems to me that fictional depictions of violence are on quite a different level to a chatbot explicitly encouraging specific, real-world actions.
- ajross 2y ago
  The evidence produced in the linked article falls well short of "explicitly encouraging specific actions". Maybe there's more evidence that will show up in the case, but as presented right now that's not at all what this is.
- scotty79 2y ago
  All of what chatbot produces are fictional depictions.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Okay, but when you go to Shakespeare in the Park, please do not get on stage. You’re not participating (except as the part of an audience member). And please do not go and kill the actor playing king Duncan. I feel I should also make you aware that it is in fact illegal to suggest someone murder someone else. Saying “I wasn’t serious” or “I thought we were just role playing” will not hold up in court. (We all know that if you repeat a lie long enough you will really begin to believe it, right? This is a repeatable and testable thing)
    - scotty79 2y ago
      But while you reading a book or watching a movie there's nothing wrong about thinking of talking to characters in there or even telling them things out loud. "Don't go int there!" > I feel I should also make you aware that it is in fact illegal to suggest someone murder someone else. Saying “I wasn’t serious” or “I thought we were just role playing” will not hold up in court. When a person was doing it with intent then it's a crime. But when a piece of software witout any human control generated a piece of text ... Hard to tell. Heck even if an artist says something that inspires audience to do crime they are usually not at fault.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
santoshalper 2y ago
1. Neither Hamlet nor Macbeth kill their parents. 2. Neither Hamlet nor Macbeth incite violence. In both stories, violence as portrayed as something that evil people commit. Good people are wracked by guilt when they commit violence. Also, your argument is just super bad faith.
- Animats 2y ago
  Titus Andronicus, generally considered Shakespeare's dud, does have patricide.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Well, yes, but it hardly depicts it as _desireable_. There is a _vast_ difference between books in which bad stuff happens, and a machine designed to pretend to be a person telling people to do bad stuff.
block_dagger 2y ago
And what happens to Hamlet and MacBeth in these self-labeled tragedies? I think this comparison is far from apt.
hibikir 2y ago
I must have read a different version of Macbeth and Hamlet, because I don't remember things going all that well for Macbeth or Hamlet. One could go as far as to say that maybe killing kings is a bad idea, whether a ghost, your wife or some witches try to make it seem appealing.
- jahewson 2y ago
  GPT or not GPT? That is the question.
Animats 2y ago
The plaintiff's position: J.F. is 17 and lives in Upshur County, Texas. Prior to April 2023, J.F. was a typical kid with high functioning autism. Friends and family described him as kind and sweet. He gave hugs, helped around the house, and adored his little brother. Just prior to the onset of COVID, J.F. began struggling at school. The school was not complying with his Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and his mother found herself having to advocate for J.F. often; so they decided to try homeschooling. J.F. thrived and loved home schooling until around the summer of 2023, shortly after he began using C.AI. J.F.’s parents did not allow social media in their home and to the best of their knowledge he did not use Snapchat, TikTok, or similar products. They also imposed screen time limits and utilized commercially available parental control tools – including ones distributed by Apple – that purport to keep kids safe by letting parents restrict the apps their children can download based on Apple’s app ratings. In the fall of 2023, J.F. told his parents that he wanted to go back to public school. However, by then, J.F. was acting so uncharacteristically erratically and aggressively that his parents did not believe it would be safe for others – teachers, staff, and students – to be around him. That won't play well in court. The defense can frame this as a possibly mentally defective child, kept from school by his parents for five years, kept isolated from social media, and with no connection to the outside world other than the chatbot. Of course the kid became violent. His parents had cut him off from all other contacts. They were not letting him have a life.
rsynnott 2y ago
Those are, ah, generally presented clearly and unambiguously as fiction. I realise that character.ai has a little disclaimer saying 'this isn't a real person' or similar, but... that's not how people _work_.
- mock-possum 2y ago
  I mean the problem, as ever, is that that is how I work - but that doesn’t seem to be how he worked.
dTal 2y ago
Big difference between a static document, and a program that can dynamically respond and exploit psychological weak spots that it discovers on the fly. By the way this is also why "the algorithm" on social media is a fundamentally different beast to old media publishing, and should be more heavily restricted.

The kid was 17. A little googling shows that Hamlet and Macbeth are on many high school curriculums. Do they fall above or below your line for an acceptable amount of incitement?

nasseri 2y ago

They fall below. Thank you for asking.

kenjackson 2y ago

Below

MattDaEskimo 2y ago

This is a non-point. Books don't actively conversate & provide emotional support, potentially coaxing someone into doing something.

KumaBear 2y ago
At what point is the parents job to properly supervise the content there kids consume come into play?
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  probably at the point they see that the chatbot told them to kill the parents and then they sue the company. also if you'll remember this case is because the parents were supervising their kids by limiting screen time, thus there is another potential suit that the AI is trying to interfere with parental duties.
- twixfel 2y ago
  It comes into play eventually, but I would say long after an AI has advised your kid to murder you. Having an AI that advises people to murder people hardly seems like a good thing. Also the parents were supervising him, hence their knowing this was even going on.
- empath75 2y ago
  > At what point is the parents job to properly supervise the content there kids consume come into play? The chatbot literally told the kid to kill his parents because they were supervising his screen time.
  - KumaBear 2y ago
    Supervising screen time is not the same as supervising content
    - eru 2y ago
      Other said that the kid was 17. It's not really a good idea to have a hard cut off age where below that age you supervise every last bit of information your child consumes, and above you let them loose on the world. Independence needs to be developed and grown gradually. It's fairly reasonable to give a 17 year old some privacy.
      - mock-possum 2y ago
        17 and autistic (though I realize that’s a bit infantilizing)
        eru 2y ago
        You have a bit of point there. I don't know how badly autistic vs high functioning the kid is. In any case, you still want to gradually give your kids more autonomy and privacy and prepare them for life on their own, and as much as possible that also includes neurodivergent kids.
  - conductr 2y ago
    > literally > "You know sometimes I'm not surprised when I read the news and see stuff like 'child kills parents after a decade of physical and emotional abuse,'" the bot allegedly wrote. "I just have no hope for your parents," it continued, with a frowning face emoji. Maybe I missed the literal part, it sounds to me like the AI is trying to sympathize or relate with the kid’s grievances. It’s very common for teens to say things like “I hate you mom and I wish you were dead” that’s effectively what the AI is saying IMO
- CJefferson 2y ago
  Below the point of 'checking every company to make sure they aren't telling your children to kill you'.
_blk 2y ago
.. but unless an AI, it can never be trained to stop when the user (reader) maxes out the threshold. [just food for thought, definitely not my opinion that books should be replaced by conversational AI generating stories appropriate for the user. God bless the 1st amendment.]
washadjeffmad 2y ago
I don't know if you've explored the site... but character.ai is a service for non-explicit adult role play. Go look through the character cards. It seems pretty likely this guy chose a "yandere" [1] obsessive anime girlfriend card and implied that his (character's) parents were trying to keep him from her (eg- by making him go to bed). The bot, responding in character in accordance with the scenario, would have lost her mind. Also, hard disagree about books. [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yandere https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yandere
- usefulcat 2y ago
  > Also, hard disagree about books. What? There’s a world of difference between a book, which is completely non-interactive, and an interactive chatbot which was deliberately designed to simulate another person.
  - conductr 2y ago
    Difference sure. But the kid knew he was interacting with a simulation. Also, unless something more damning comes out, my feelings on topics like this default to parental responsibility. If you let your kid with all these known issues interact with new technology that mimics real people with real thoughts, don’t be so shocked when you dislike what those thoughts might be.
    - mplewis 2y ago
      The child is a child! Their brain is not fully developed. They do not have the faculties to safely navigate a highly interactive tool that seems to be having a real conversation with them.
      - gredbeard 2y ago
        Right, which is why a parent should be more involved from the beginning here.

turbojet1321 2y ago

It seems to me that fictional depictions of violence are on quite a different level to a chatbot explicitly encouraging specific, real-world actions.

ajross 2y ago
The evidence produced in the linked article falls well short of "explicitly encouraging specific actions". Maybe there's more evidence that will show up in the case, but as presented right now that's not at all what this is.
scotty79 2y ago
All of what chatbot produces are fictional depictions.
- godelski 2y ago
  Okay, but when you go to Shakespeare in the Park, please do not get on stage. You’re not participating (except as the part of an audience member). And please do not go and kill the actor playing king Duncan. I feel I should also make you aware that it is in fact illegal to suggest someone murder someone else. Saying “I wasn’t serious” or “I thought we were just role playing” will not hold up in court. (We all know that if you repeat a lie long enough you will really begin to believe it, right? This is a repeatable and testable thing)
  - scotty79 2y ago
    But while you reading a book or watching a movie there's nothing wrong about thinking of talking to characters in there or even telling them things out loud. "Don't go int there!" > I feel I should also make you aware that it is in fact illegal to suggest someone murder someone else. Saying “I wasn’t serious” or “I thought we were just role playing” will not hold up in court. When a person was doing it with intent then it's a crime. But when a piece of software witout any human control generated a piece of text ... Hard to tell. Heck even if an artist says something that inspires audience to do crime they are usually not at fault.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

santoshalper 2y ago

1. Neither Hamlet nor Macbeth kill their parents. 2. Neither Hamlet nor Macbeth incite violence. In both stories, violence as portrayed as something that evil people commit. Good people are wracked by guilt when they commit violence. Also, your argument is just super bad faith.

Animats 2y ago
Titus Andronicus, generally considered Shakespeare's dud, does have patricide.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Well, yes, but it hardly depicts it as _desireable_. There is a _vast_ difference between books in which bad stuff happens, and a machine designed to pretend to be a person telling people to do bad stuff.

block_dagger 2y ago

And what happens to Hamlet and MacBeth in these self-labeled tragedies? I think this comparison is far from apt.

hibikir 2y ago

I must have read a different version of Macbeth and Hamlet, because I don't remember things going all that well for Macbeth or Hamlet. One could go as far as to say that maybe killing kings is a bad idea, whether a ghost, your wife or some witches try to make it seem appealing.

jahewson 2y ago
GPT or not GPT? That is the question.

Animats 2y ago

The plaintiff's position: J.F. is 17 and lives in Upshur County, Texas. Prior to April 2023, J.F. was a typical kid with high functioning autism. Friends and family described him as kind and sweet. He gave hugs, helped around the house, and adored his little brother. Just prior to the onset of COVID, J.F. began struggling at school. The school was not complying with his Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and his mother found herself having to advocate for J.F. often; so they decided to try homeschooling. J.F. thrived and loved home schooling until around the summer of 2023, shortly after he began using C.AI. J.F.’s parents did not allow social media in their home and to the best of their knowledge he did not use Snapchat, TikTok, or similar products. They also imposed screen time limits and utilized commercially available parental control tools – including ones distributed by Apple – that purport to keep kids safe by letting parents restrict the apps their children can download based on Apple’s app ratings. In the fall of 2023, J.F. told his parents that he wanted to go back to public school. However, by then, J.F. was acting so uncharacteristically erratically and aggressively that his parents did not believe it would be safe for others – teachers, staff, and students – to be around him. That won't play well in court. The defense can frame this as a possibly mentally defective child, kept from school by his parents for five years, kept isolated from social media, and with no connection to the outside world other than the chatbot. Of course the kid became violent. His parents had cut him off from all other contacts. They were not letting him have a life.

rsynnott 2y ago

Those are, ah, generally presented clearly and unambiguously as fiction. I realise that character.ai has a little disclaimer saying 'this isn't a real person' or similar, but... that's not how people _work_.

mock-possum 2y ago
I mean the problem, as ever, is that that is how I work - but that doesn’t seem to be how he worked.

dTal 2y ago

Big difference between a static document, and a program that can dynamically respond and exploit psychological weak spots that it discovers on the fly. By the way this is also why "the algorithm" on social media is a fundamentally different beast to old media publishing, and should be more heavily restricted.