3 ms·

I don't accept the unregulated and uncontrolled use of LLMs for therapy for the same reason I don't accept arguments like "We should deregulate food safety beca

I don't accept the unregulated and uncontrolled use of LLMs for therapy for the same reason I don't accept arguments like "We should deregulate food safety because it means more food at lower cost to consumers" or "We should waive minimum space standards for permitted developments on existing buildings because it means more housing." We could "solve" the homeless problem tomorrow simply by building tenements (that is why they existed in the first place after all). The harm LLMs do in this case is attested both by that NYT article and the more rigorous study from Stanford. There are two problems with your argument as I see it: 1. You're assuming "LLM therapy" is less harmful than "no therapy", an assumption I don't believe has been demonstrated. 2. You're not taking into account the long term harm of putting in place a solution that's "not fit for human use" as in the housing and food examples: once these things become accepted, they form the baseline of the new accepted "minimum standard of living", bringing that standard down for everyone. You claim to be making a utilitarian as opposed to a nonmaleficent argument, but, for the reasons I've stated here, I don't believe it's a utilitarian argument at all.

freedomben 1y ago
I think the reason you don't believe the GP argument, is because you are misunderstanding it. The utilitarian argument is not calling for complete deregulation. I think you're taking your absolutist view of not allowing llms to do any therapy, and assuming the other side must have a similarly absolutist view of allowing it to do any therapy with no regulations. Certainly nothing in the GP comment suggests complete deregulation as you have said. In fact, I got explicitly the opposite out of it. They are comparing it to cars and food, which are pretty clearly not entirely deregulated.
malka1986 1y ago
> I don't accept the unregulated and uncontrolled use of LLMs for therapy for the same reason I don't accept arguments like "We should deregulate food safety because it means more food at lower cost to consumers" That is not the argument. The argument is not about 'lower cost', it is about availability. There are not enough shrinks for everyone who would need it. So it would be "We should deregulate food safety to avoid starving", which would be a valid argument.
terminalshort 1y ago
I bet you don't accept that because you can afford the expensive regulated version.
ethbr1 1y ago
> "We should waive minimum space standards for permitted developments on existing buildings because it means more housing." We could "solve" the homeless problem tomorrow simply by building tenements (that is why they existed in the first place after all). ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist is because most governments regulated them out of existence (e.g. by banning shared bathrooms to push SFHs). You can't have it all ways. strict minimum regulation : availability : cost Pick 2.
- butlike 1y ago
  Small edit: > ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist _where you live_

freedomben 1y ago

I think the reason you don't believe the GP argument, is because you are misunderstanding it. The utilitarian argument is not calling for complete deregulation. I think you're taking your absolutist view of not allowing llms to do any therapy, and assuming the other side must have a similarly absolutist view of allowing it to do any therapy with no regulations. Certainly nothing in the GP comment suggests complete deregulation as you have said. In fact, I got explicitly the opposite out of it. They are comparing it to cars and food, which are pretty clearly not entirely deregulated.

malka1986 1y ago

> I don't accept the unregulated and uncontrolled use of LLMs for therapy for the same reason I don't accept arguments like "We should deregulate food safety because it means more food at lower cost to consumers" That is not the argument. The argument is not about 'lower cost', it is about availability. There are not enough shrinks for everyone who would need it. So it would be "We should deregulate food safety to avoid starving", which would be a valid argument.

terminalshort 1y ago

I bet you don't accept that because you can afford the expensive regulated version.

ethbr1 1y ago

> "We should waive minimum space standards for permitted developments on existing buildings because it means more housing." We could "solve" the homeless problem tomorrow simply by building tenements (that is why they existed in the first place after all). ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist is because most governments regulated them out of existence (e.g. by banning shared bathrooms to push SFHs). You can't have it all ways. strict minimum regulation : availability : cost Pick 2.

butlike 1y ago
Small edit: > ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist ... the entire reason tenements and boarding houses no longer exist _where you live_