4 ms·

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.

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.