4 ms·

If ChatGPT has helped people be saved who might otherwise have died (e.g. by offering good medical advice that saved them), are all those lives saved also somet

by edanm 1y ago

If ChatGPT has helped people be saved who might otherwise have died (e.g. by offering good medical advice that saved them), are all those lives saved also something you "attribute" to OpenAI? I don't know if ChatGPT has saved lives (thought I've read stories that claim that, yes, this happened). But assuming it has, are you OK saying that OpenAI has saved dozens/hundreds of lives? Given how scaling works, would you be OK saying that OpenAI has saved more lives than most doctors/hospitals, which is what I assume will happen in a few years? Maybe your answer is yes to all the above! I bring this up because lots of people only want to attribute the downsides to ChatGPT but not the upsides.

joe_the_user 1y ago
The law doesn't permit a life-saving doctor to be a serial killer on their days off "as long there's net life saving". But it does permit drugs that save many lives but might kill some people too. Agency matters to the law (and that's usually the proper approach imo). The problem is the chat logs look a lot like ChatGPT is engaging in behavior a lot like a serial killer - it behaved like a person systematically seeking the goal of this kid killing himself (the logs are disturbing, fair warning). Even more, the drugs that might save you or might kill you (theoretically) aren't sold over the counter but only prescribed by a doctor, who (again theoretically) is there to both make sure someone knows their choices and monitor the process.
fsw 1y ago
Are you suggesting that killing a few people is acceptable as long as the net result is positive? I don't think that's how the law works.
- randyrand 1y ago
  seatbelts sometimes kill people, yet they're law. the law certainly cares about net results.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  But it is the standard on how cures/treatments/drugs to manage issues like the ones in the article are judged by.
- coremoff 1y ago
  It's the trolley problem reframed; not sure we have a definitive answer to that.
  - dpassens 1y ago
    No. Central to the trolley problem is that you're in a _runaway_ trolley. In this case, OpenAI not only chose to start the trolley, they also chose to not brake even when it became apparent that they were going to run somebody over.
    - coremoff 1y ago
      The tradeoff suggested above (not saying that it's the right way around or correct) is: * If you provide ChatGPT then 5 people who would have died will live and 1 person who would have lived will die. ("go to the doctor" vs "don't tell anyone that you're suicidal") * If you don't provide ChatGPT then 1 person who would have died will live and 5 people who would have lived will die. Like many things, it's a tradeoff and the tradeoffs might not be obvious up front.
      - morpheos137 1y ago
        Thats a speculative argument and would be laughed out of court.
nkrisc 1y ago
In any case, if you kill one person and separately save ten people, you’ll still be prosecuted for killing that one person.
- aucisson_masque 1y ago
  There is law and there is moral tho. Sometimes the two doesn’t coincide but I know which one I put on top of the other.
- mothballed 1y ago
  That's not the standard we hold medical care providers, pharmaceutical companies, or even cops to. Not that I'm saying it would justify it one way or another if we did.
  - Orygin 1y ago
    It absolutely is? If a doctor is responsible for negligence resulting in the death of someone, they don't get a pass because they saved 10 other people in their career.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      It's not negligent to perform a procedure knowing it will kill some of the patients who would have otherwise lived healthy lives, though.
      - Orygin 1y ago
        If they would otherwise live healthy lives, why perform the procedure? Most likely the patient is informed by the practitioner about the risks and they can make an informed decision. That is not the case about ChatGPT where openAI will sell it as the next best thing since sliced bread, with a puny little warning below the page. Even worse when you see all the "AI therapy" apps that pop up everywhere, where the user may think that the AI is as-good as a real therapist, but without any of the responsibility for the company in case of issues.

by edanm 1y ago

joe_the_user 1y ago

The law doesn't permit a life-saving doctor to be a serial killer on their days off "as long there's net life saving". But it does permit drugs that save many lives but might kill some people too. Agency matters to the law (and that's usually the proper approach imo). The problem is the chat logs look a lot like ChatGPT is engaging in behavior a lot like a serial killer - it behaved like a person systematically seeking the goal of this kid killing himself (the logs are disturbing, fair warning). Even more, the drugs that might save you or might kill you (theoretically) aren't sold over the counter but only prescribed by a doctor, who (again theoretically) is there to both make sure someone knows their choices and monitor the process.

fsw 1y ago

Are you suggesting that killing a few people is acceptable as long as the net result is positive? I don't think that's how the law works.

randyrand 1y ago
seatbelts sometimes kill people, yet they're law. the law certainly cares about net results.
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
But it is the standard on how cures/treatments/drugs to manage issues like the ones in the article are judged by.
coremoff 1y ago
It's the trolley problem reframed; not sure we have a definitive answer to that.
- dpassens 1y ago
  No. Central to the trolley problem is that you're in a _runaway_ trolley. In this case, OpenAI not only chose to start the trolley, they also chose to not brake even when it became apparent that they were going to run somebody over.
  - coremoff 1y ago
    The tradeoff suggested above (not saying that it's the right way around or correct) is: * If you provide ChatGPT then 5 people who would have died will live and 1 person who would have lived will die. ("go to the doctor" vs "don't tell anyone that you're suicidal") * If you don't provide ChatGPT then 1 person who would have died will live and 5 people who would have lived will die. Like many things, it's a tradeoff and the tradeoffs might not be obvious up front.
    - morpheos137 1y ago
      Thats a speculative argument and would be laughed out of court.

nkrisc 1y ago

In any case, if you kill one person and separately save ten people, you’ll still be prosecuted for killing that one person.

aucisson_masque 1y ago
There is law and there is moral tho. Sometimes the two doesn’t coincide but I know which one I put on top of the other.
mothballed 1y ago
That's not the standard we hold medical care providers, pharmaceutical companies, or even cops to. Not that I'm saying it would justify it one way or another if we did.
- Orygin 1y ago
  It absolutely is? If a doctor is responsible for negligence resulting in the death of someone, they don't get a pass because they saved 10 other people in their career.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    It's not negligent to perform a procedure knowing it will kill some of the patients who would have otherwise lived healthy lives, though.
    - Orygin 1y ago
      If they would otherwise live healthy lives, why perform the procedure? Most likely the patient is informed by the practitioner about the risks and they can make an informed decision. That is not the case about ChatGPT where openAI will sell it as the next best thing since sliced bread, with a puny little warning below the page. Even worse when you see all the "AI therapy" apps that pop up everywhere, where the user may think that the AI is as-good as a real therapist, but without any of the responsibility for the company in case of issues.