4 ms·

You're really shrugging off an interactive device engineered by at least one (likely a ~dozen) person to be X percent more sycophantic and agreeable? Do you thi

You're really shrugging off an interactive device engineered by at least one (likely a ~dozen) person to be X percent more sycophantic and agreeable? Do you think the user experience is really so inscrutable? Guardrail models are a common safety measure in use by everyone else (INCLUDING CHATGPT!) -- why is it you can talk endlessly with ChatGPT models (specifically I'm referring to the configuration of the models and the application) about a dangerous delusion but not chemical weapons?? Of course there are people prone to psychotic delusions and there may always be but to just hand wave away any responsibility by OpenAI to act responsibly in the face of this is absolutely ludicrous.

beering 1y ago
> why is it you can talk endlessly with ChatGPT models (specifically I'm referring to the configuration of the models and the application) about a dangerous delusion but not chemical weapons?? Because exploring my sprituality and meaning in life is not akin to making WMDs? I don’t actually do that with chatgpt, but the line between “accepted spiritual and religious practices” and “dangerous delusions” is hard to draw.
duskwuff 1y ago
> why is it you can talk endlessly with ChatGPT models (specifically I'm referring to the configuration of the models and the application) about a dangerous delusion but not chemical weapons?? Because only one of these things can be reliably detected by a safety model. Users discussing delusional beliefs are hard for a machine to identify in a general fashion; there's a lot of overlap with discussions about religion and philosophy, or with role-playing or worldbuilding exercises.
superkuh 1y ago
So, should we ban all fiction then? That seems to be what you're saying. All text will have to be pre-approved by a centralized agency before the public, bless their souls, could be confused by it. Even if I accept you premise I can't imagine any enforcement solution that doesn't do millions of time more damage to our society.

beering 1y ago

> why is it you can talk endlessly with ChatGPT models (specifically I'm referring to the configuration of the models and the application) about a dangerous delusion but not chemical weapons?? Because exploring my sprituality and meaning in life is not akin to making WMDs? I don’t actually do that with chatgpt, but the line between “accepted spiritual and religious practices” and “dangerous delusions” is hard to draw.

duskwuff 1y ago

> why is it you can talk endlessly with ChatGPT models (specifically I'm referring to the configuration of the models and the application) about a dangerous delusion but not chemical weapons?? Because only one of these things can be reliably detected by a safety model. Users discussing delusional beliefs are hard for a machine to identify in a general fashion; there's a lot of overlap with discussions about religion and philosophy, or with role-playing or worldbuilding exercises.

superkuh 1y ago

So, should we ban all fiction then? That seems to be what you're saying. All text will have to be pre-approved by a centralized agency before the public, bless their souls, could be confused by it. Even if I accept you premise I can't imagine any enforcement solution that doesn't do millions of time more damage to our society.