13 ms·

ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

• randycupertino 1y ago
  Sounds like it is still giving out medical and legal information just adding CYA disclaimers.
  • mikkupikku 1y ago
    It would be terribly boring if it didn't. Just last night I had it walk me through reptile laws in my state to evaluate my business plan for a vertically integrated snapping turtle farm and turtle soup restaurant empire. Absurd, but it's fun to use for this kind of thing because it almost always takes you seriously. (Turns out I would need permits :-( )
• cpfohl 1y ago
  Tricky…my son had a really rare congenital issue that no one could solve for a long time. After it was diagnosed I walked an older version of chat gpt through our experience and it suggested my son’s issue as a possibility along with the correct diagnostic tool in just one back and forth. I’m not saying we should be getting AI advice without a professional, but I’m my case it could have saved my kid a LOT of physical pain.
  • throwaway290 1y ago
    this is fresh news right? a friend just used chatgpt for medical advice last week (stuffed his wound with antibiotics after motorbike crash). are you saying you completely treated the congenital issue in this timeframe?
    • cj 1y ago
      He’s simply saying that ChatGPT was able to point them in the right direction after 1 chat exchange, compared to doctors who couldn’t for a long time. Edit: Not saying this is the case for the person above, but one thing that might bias these observations is ChatGPT’s memory features. If you have a chat about the condition after it’s diagnosed, you can’t use the same ChatGPT account to test whether it could have diagnosed the same thing (since the chatGPT account now knows the son has a specific condition). The memory features are awesome but also sucks at the same time. I feel myself getting stuck in a personalized bubble even more so than Google.
      • ninininino 1y ago
        You can just use the wipe memory feature or if you don't trust that, then start a new account (new login creds), if you don't trust that then get a new device, cell provider/wifi, credit card, I.P, login creds etc.
        • cj 1y ago
          Or start a “temporary” chat.
      • throwaway290 1y ago
        > He’s simply saying that ChatGPT was able to point them in the right direction after 1 chat exchange, compared to doctors who couldn’t for a long time He literally wrote that. I asked how he knows it's the right direction. it must be treatment worked. otherwise it is more or less just a hunch people go "oh yep that's definitely it" too easily. it is the problem with self diagnosing. And you didn't even notice it happened... without more info this is not evidence.
        • cpfohl 1y ago
          We had the diagnosis before I started with the LLM. The radiology showed the problem and the surgeries worked. Down to an ultrasound a year now! We took him to our local ER, they ran tests. I gave the LLM just the symptom list that I gave to the ER initially. It replied with all the things they tested for. I gave the test results, and it suggested a short list with diagnostics that included his actual Dx and the correct way to test for it.
          • throwaway290 1y ago
            That's great that it worked so quickly too (and you could arrange surgery on such short notice). I'm sure more people with same issue may benefit from more details?
            • cpfohl 1y ago
  • tencentshill 1y ago
    We are all obligated to hoard as many offline AI models as possible if the larger ones are legally restricted like this.
    • SlavikCA 1y ago
      Google released MedGemma model: "optimized for medical text and image comprehension". I use it. Found it to be helpful.
  • rafaelmn 1y ago
    >After it was diagnosed I walked an older version of chat gpt through our experience and it suggested my son’s issue as a possibility along with the correct diagnostic tool in just one back and forth. Something I've noticed is that it's much easier to lead the LLM to the answer when you know where you want to go (even when the answer is factually wrong !), it doesn't have to be obvious leading but just framing the question in terms of mentioning all the symptoms you now know to be relevant in the order that's diagnosable, etc. Not saying that's the case here, you might have gotten the correct answer first try - but checking my now diagnosed gastritis I got stuff from GERD to CRC depending on which symptoms I decide to stress and which events I emphasize in the history.
    • schiffern 1y ago
      >checking my now diagnosed gastritis I got stuff from GERD to CRC depending on which symptoms I decide to stress and which events I emphasize in the history So... exactly the same behavior as human doctors?
      • kjellsbells 1y ago
        Exactly the same behavior as a conversation with an idealized human doctor, perhaps. One who isn't tired, bored, stressed, biased, or just overworked. The value that folks get from chatgpt for medical advice is due in large part to the unhurried pace of the interaction. Didn't get it quite right? No doctor huffing and tapping their keyboard impatiently. Just refine the prompt and try as many times as you like. For the 80s HNers out there, when I hear people talk about talking with chatgpt, Kate Bush's song A Deeper Understanding comes immediately to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeper_Understanding?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeper_Understanding?wprov=sfl...
      • inglor_cz 1y ago
        ChatGPT and similar tools hallucinate and can mislead you. Human doctors, on the other hand ... can be tired, hungover, thinking about a complicated case ahead of them, nauseous from a bad lunch, undergoing a divorce, alcoholics, depressed... We humans have a lot of failure modes.
  • terminalshort 1y ago
    Why are you saying we shouldn't get AI advice without a "professional", then? Why is everybody here saying "in my experience it's just as good or better, but we need rules to make people use the worse option"? I have narcolepsy and it took a dozen doctors before they got it right. AI nails the diagnosis. Everybody should be using it.
    • pinnochio 1y ago
      Survivorship bias.
      • teitoklien 1y ago
        Experience working with doctors a few times, and then we’ll see all the bias if one is still surviving lol. Doctors are some of the most corrupt professions who are more focused on selling drugs they get paid commission for to promote, or they obsess over tons and tons of expensive medical tests, that they themselves often know is not needed, except they ask for it, simply out of fear of courts suing them for negligence in future or because again , THEY GET A COMMISSION from the testing agencies for sending them clients. And even with all of that info, they often come out with the wrong conclusions at times. Doctors do a critically important role in our society and during covid they risked their lives for us, more than anyone else, i do not want to insult or bring down the amount of hard work doctors do for their society. But worshipping them as holier than thou gods is bullshit, that almost anyone who has spent some time with going back and forth with various doctors over the course of years will come to the conclusion of. Having an AI assistant doesnt hurt, in terms of medical hints, we need to make having Personal Responsibility popular again, in society’s obsession for making every thing “idiot proof” or “baby proof” we keep losing all sorts of useful and interesting solutions because our politicians have a strong itch to regulate anything and everything they can get their hands on, to leave a mark on society.
        • pinnochio 1y ago
          > But worshipping them as holier than thou gods is bullshit I'd say the same about AI.
  • tamimio 1y ago
    That's the experience of a lot of people I know or read their stories online, but it isn't about AI bad diagnosis, it's because they know in 5 years doctors and lawyers will be burger flippers, and as a result people won't be motivated to go into any of these fields. In Canada, the process to be a doctor is extremely complicated and hard only to keep it as some sort of private community that only the very few can become doctors, all to keep the wages abysmally high, and as a result, you end up waiting long times for appointments, and the doctors themselves are overwhelmed too. Messed up system that you better pray you never have to become its victim. In my opinion, AI should do both legal and medical work, keep some humans for decision making, and the rest of the doctors to be surgeons instead.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• bamboozled 1y ago
  I been using Claude for information regarding building and construction related information, (currently building a small house mostly on my own with pros for plumbing and electrical). Seriously the amount of misinformation it has given me is quite staggering. Telling me things like, “you need to fill your drainage pipes with sand before pouring concrete over them…”, the danger with these AI products is that you have to really know a subject before it’s properly useful. I find this with programming too. Yes it can generate code but I’ve introduced some decent bugs when over relying on AI. The plumber I used laughed at my when I told him about there sand thing. He has 40 years experience…
  • dingnuts 1y ago
    honestly I think these things cause a form of Gell Mann's Amnesia where when you use them for something you know already, the errors are obvious, but when you use them for something you don't understand already, the output is sufficiently plausible that you can't tell you're being misled. this makes the tool only useful for things you already know! I mean, just in this thread there's an anecdote from a guy who used it to check a diagnosis, but did he press through other possibilities or ask different questions because the answer was already known?
    • bamboozled 1y ago
      It’s funny you should say that because I have been using it in the way you describe. I kind of know it could be wrong, but I’m kind of desperate for info so I consult Claude anyway. After stressing hard I realize it was probably wrong, find someone who knows what they’re and actually on about and course correct.
    • rokkamokka 1y ago
      I'd frame it such that LLM advice is best when it's the type that can be quickly or easily confirmed. Like a pointer in the right (or wrong) direction. If it was false, then try again - quick iterations. Taking it at its "word" is the potentially harmful bit.
    • raw_anon_1111 1y ago
• bstsb 1y ago
  i don't think it's stopped providing said information, it's just now outlined in their usage policies that medical and legal advice is a "disallowed" use of ChatGPT
• gizajob 1y ago
  AI gets more and more useful by the day.
• miltonlost 1y ago
  Good. Techies need to stop thinking that an LLM should not be immune from requiring licensing. Until OpenAI can (and should) be sued for medical malpractice or lawyering without passing the bar, they will have no skin in the game to actually care. A disclaimer of "this is not a therapist" should not be enough to CYA.
  • blibble 1y ago
    anyone wanna form a software engineering guild, then lobby to need a license granted by the guild to practice?
    • miltonlost 1y ago
      Sorry but you’re not gonna get me to agree that medical licensing is a bad idea. I don’t want quacks more than we already do. Stick to the argument and not add in your “what about” software engineers.
      • blibble 1y ago
        I am being serious... the damage certain software engineers could do certainly surpasses most doctors
        • miltonlost 1y ago
          Ah sorry, I misread it as coming from someone who doesn't want licensing, so you were appealing to HN by switching to software engineers (and I know many on here loathe to think anything beyond "move fast and break things", which is the opposite of most (non-software) engineers. But yeah, I'd be down for at least some code of ethics, so we could have "do no harm" instead of "experiment on the mental states of children/adolescents/adults via algorithms and then do whatever is most addictive"
          • blibble 1y ago
            > But yeah, I'd be down for at least some code of ethics, so we could have "do no harm" instead of "experiment on the mental states of children/adolescents/adults via algorithms and then do whatever is most addictive" absolutely if the only way to make people stop building evil (like your example) is to make individuals personally liable, then so be it
• miki123211 1y ago
  > The AI research company updated its usage policies on Oct. 29 to clarify that users of ChatGPT can’t use the service for “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.” Is this an actual technical change, or just legal CYA?
  • bearhall 1y ago
    I think it actually changed. I have a broken bone and have been consulting with ChatGPT (along with my doctor of course) for the last week. Last night it refused to give an opinion saying “ While I can’t give a medical opinion or formally interpret it”. First time I’d seen it object. I understand the change but it’s also a shame. It’s been a fantastically useful tool for talking through things and educating myself.
    • doctoboggan 1y ago
      I suspect this is an area that a bit of clever prompting will now prove fruitful in. The system commands in the prompt will probably be "leaked" soon which should give you good avenues to explore.
      • MattDaEskimo 1y ago
        It's these workarounds that inevitably end up with someone hurt and someone else blaming the LLM.
      • j45 1y ago
        Clever is one thing, sometimes just clear prompting (I want to know how to be better informed about what kinds of topics or questions to speak to the doctor/professional about) can go a long way. Being clear that not all lawyers or doctors (in this example) are experts in every area of medicine and law, and knowing what to know and learn about and ask about is usually a helpful way. While professionals have bodies for their standards and ethics, like most things it can represent a form of income, and depending on the jurisdiction, profitability.
    • 1y ago
• PragmaCode 1y ago
  It's not stopping to give legal/medical advice to the user, but it's forbidden to use ChatGPT to pose as an advisor giving advice to others: https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/chatgpt-will-still-offer-medical-and-legal-advice-despite-what-rumors-suggest https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/chatgpt-will-still-offe...
  • trollbridge 1y ago
    One wonders how exactly this will be enforced.
    • fainpul 1y ago
      It's not about enforcing this, it's about OpenAI having their asses covered. The blame is now clearly on the user's side.
    • OutOfHere 1y ago
      It was already enforced by hiding all custom GPTs that offered medical advice.
    • bushbaba 1y ago
      It’s a “CYA” aka don’t sue me
  • gowld 1y ago
    The Tom's Guide article blatantly misinterprets and contradicts the source it quotes.
  • rester324 1y ago
    Good. Now we just need to add technical advice to the list of advices which ChatGPT cannot be used to cite for
    • esjeon 1y ago
      This. I already seen too many cases of people wiping out their systems while trying to follow invalid advices from ChatGPT.
• emaccumber 1y ago
  good thing that guy was able to negotiate his hospital bills before this went into effect.
• thedudeabides5 1y ago
  this is a disaster doomer's in control, again
  • esafak 1y ago
    This is to do with liability not doomerism.
  • reducesuffering 1y ago
    Literally nothing to do with "doomers" X-risk concerns. See if you can find "medical advice" ever mentioned as a problem: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kgb58RL88YChkkBNf/the-problem https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kgb58RL88YChkkBNf/the-proble...
    • thedudeabides5 1y ago
      you don't see ANY relationship between the X risk people opening the door for the safety-ist folks to walk through?
• learnplaceai 1y ago
  Sad times - I used ChatGPT to solve a long-term issue!
  • ares623 1y ago
    This won’t be affecting you then! /s
• o11c 1y ago
  When OpenAI is done getting rid of all the cases where its AI gives dangerously wrong advice about licensed professions, all that will be left is the cases where its AI gives dangerously wrong advice about unlicensed professions.
  • Lionga 1y ago
    maybe that is why they opened the system to porn, as everything else will be soon gone.
  • entropicdrifter 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • mirabilis 1y ago
      An AI-related bromide poisoning incident earlier this year: “Inspired by his history of studying nutrition in college, he decided to conduct a personal experiment to eliminate chloride from his diet. For 3 months, he had replaced sodium chloride with sodium bromide obtained from the internet after consultation with ChatGPT, in which he had read that chloride can be swapped with bromide, though likely for other purposes, such as cleaning… However, when we asked ChatGPT 3.5 what chloride can be replaced with, we also produced a response that included bromide. Though the reply stated that context matters, it did not provide a specific health warning, nor did it inquire about why we wanted to know, as we presume a medical professional would do.” https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260
  • tacker2000 1y ago
    Aka software engineers…
• Zr01 1y ago
  The cynic in me thinks this is just a means to eventually make more money by offering paid unrestricted versions to medical and legal professionals. I'm well-aware that it's not a truth machine, and any output it provides should be verified, checked for references, and treated with due diligence. Yet the same goes for just about any internet search. I don't think some people not knowing how to use it warrants restricting its functionality for the rest of us.
  • watwut 1y ago
    If they do that, they will be subject of regulations on medical devices. As they should be and means the end result will be less likely to promote complete crap then it is now.
    • scarmig 1y ago
      And then users balk at the hefty fee and start getting their medical information from utopiacancercenter.com and the like.
      • oblio 1y ago
        Let them. You can't save those people anyway. Science should be clearly labelled for those that can read. Everyone else can go eat blueberry leaves if they so choose.
  • miltonlost 1y ago
    > I'm well-aware that it's not a truth machine, and any output it provides should be verified, checked for references, and treated with due diligence. You are, but that's not how AI is being marketed by OpenAI, Google, etc. They never mention, in their ads, how much the output needs to be double and triple checked. They say "AI can do what you want! It knows all! It's smarter than PhDs!". Search engines don't say "And this is the truth" in their results, which is not what LLM hypers do.
    • Zr01 1y ago
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• uslic001 1y ago
  As a doctor I hope it still allows me to get up to speed on latest treatments for rare diseases that I see once every 10 years. It saves me a lot of time rather than having to dig through all the new information since I last encountered a rare disease.
  • asadotzler 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • catlifeonmars 1y ago
    I assume you are reading the sources rather than relying solely on the AI summaries.
    • ryandrake 1y ago
      God, I hope so. I would love to have a list of doctors using ChatGPT as medical education, so I can avoid them.
• blindriver 1y ago
  This is a big mistake. This is one of the best things about ChatGPT. If they don’t offer it, then someone else will and eventually I’m sure Sam Altman will change his mind and start supporting it again.
• zjp 1y ago
  RIP Dr. ChatGPT, we'll miss you. Thanks for the advice on fixing my shoulder pain while you were still unmuzzled.
• awillen 1y ago
  This is not true, just a viral rumor going around: https://x.com/thekaransinghal/status/1985416057805496524 https://x.com/thekaransinghal/status/1985416057805496524 I've used it for both medical and legal advice as the rumor's been going around. I wish more people would do a quick check before posting.
• andrewinardeer 1y ago
  AGI edging closer by the day.
• calmworm 1y ago
  Licensed huh? Teachers, land surveyors, cosmetologists, nurses, building contractors, counselors, therapists, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, electricians, and many many more…
• doctoboggan 1y ago
  It will be interesting to see if the other major providers follow suit, or if those in the know just learn to go to google or anthropic for medical or legal advice.
• nomendos 1y ago
  This is typical medical "cartel" (i.e. gang/mafia) type of a move and I hope it does not last, since any other AI's do not get restricted in "do not look up" way, this kind of practice won't stand a chance for very long.
• OutOfHere 1y ago
  If OpenAI wants to move users to competitors, that'll only cost them.
• danielmarkbruce 1y ago
  This is disappointing. Much legal and medical advice given by professionals is wrong, misleading, etc. The bar isn't high. This is a mistake.
• ideamotor 1y ago
  Ah, that'll be the end of that then!
• BrenBarn 1y ago
  I'd bet dollars to donuts it doesn't actually "end legal and medical advice", it just ends it in some ill-defined subset of situations they were able to target, while still leaving the engine capable of giving such advice in response to other prompts they didn't think to test.
• zelias 1y ago
  Wasn't there a recent OAI dev day in which they had some users come on stage and discuss how helpful ChatGPT was in parsing diagnoses from different doctors? I guess the legal risks were large enough to outweigh this
  • fluidcruft 1y ago
    I'd wager it's probably more that there's an identifiable customer and specific product to be sold. Doctors, hospitals, EHR companies and insurers all are very interested in paying for a validated version of this thing.
    • gxs 1y ago
      Or simple threats of lawsuits directly/indirectly, theres a lot of money at stake here in the end
    • lupire 1y ago
      But validation is theoretically impossible.
• cm2012 1y ago
  Horrible. ChatGPT saves lives right now.
• oceansky 1y ago
  Just after Kim Kardashian blamed Chatgpt for failing the bar exam
  • wombatpm 1y ago
    And it had nothing to do with her being a vacuous idiot.
• JCM9 1y ago
  Unfortunately, lawyers make this sort of thing untenable. Partially self-preservation behavior, partially ambulance chasing behavior. I’m waiting for the billboards “Injured by AI? Call 1-800-ROBO-LAW”
  • codedokode 1y ago
    So, for example, requiring a doctor to have education and qualifications, is "untenable"? It would be better if anyone could practice medicine? And LLM is below "anyone" level.
    • JCM9 1y ago
      The medical profession has generally been more open to AI. The long predicted demise of Radiology because of ML never happened. Lots of opportunity to incorporate AI into medical records to assist. The legal profession is far more at threat with AI. AI isn’t going to replace physical interactions with patients, but it might replace your need for a human to review a contract.
      • 1718627440 1y ago
        ML on curated and diagnosed by a professional radiology reports is clearly a different beast than random language models, that might have random talking about their health issues in it's training data.
      • asadotzler 1y ago
        I assure you the medical profession is not generally open to non-medical professionals using AI for medical purposes.
        • gertop 1y ago
          The medical profession is not open about any kind of self diagnosis. I've learned through experience that telling a doctor "I have X and I would like to be treated with Y" is not a good idea. They want to be the ones who came up with the diagnosis. They need to be the smartest person in the room. In fact I've had doctors go in a completely different direction just to discredit my diagnosis. Of course in the end I was right. That isn't to say I'm smarter, I'm not, but I'm the one with the symptoms and I'm better equipped to quickly find a matching disease. Yes some doctors appreciate the initiative. In my experience most do not. So now I just usually tell them my symptoms but none of the research I did. If their conclusion is widely off base I try to steer them towards what my research said. So far so good but wouldn't it be nice if all doctors had humility?
• ath3nd 1y ago
  [dead]
• sfblah 1y ago
  Things like this really favor models offered from countries that have fewer legal restrictions. I just don't think it's realistic to expect people not to have access to these capabilities. It would be reasonable to add a disclaimer. But as things stand I think it's fair to consider talking to ChatGPT to be the same as talking to a random person on the street, meaning normal free-speech protections would apply.
  • thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    What capabilities? The article says the study found it was entirely correct 31% of the time.
    • Jweb_Guru 1y ago
      This is what really scares me about people using AI. It will confidently hallucinate studies and quotes that have absolutely no basis in reality, and even in your own field you're not going to know whether what it's saying is real or not without following up on absolutely every assertion. But people are happy to completely buy its diagnoses of rare medical conditions based on what, exactly?
      • simianwords 1y ago
        Give a single example using gpt-5 thinking.
        • Jweb_Guru 1y ago
          GPT-5 thinking is one of the biggest offenders and it's quite incredible to me that you think it doesn't hallucinate. It makes me strongly suspect your own judgment is impaired. Also, what do you mean asking for "reproducible examples"? Is it somehow not a valid example if it only sometimes makes up citations?
          • simianwords 1y ago
            Share any example where I can get it to make an obvious error
• spullara 1y ago
  This title is inaccurate. What they are disallowing are users using ChatGPT to offer legal and medical advice to other people. First parties can still use ChatGPT for medical and legal advice for themselves.
  • ctoth 1y ago
    I keep seeing this problem more and more with humans. What should we call it? Maybe Hallucinations? Where there is an accurate true thing and then it just gets altered by these guys who call themselves journalists and reporters and the like until it is just ... completely unrecognizable? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental issue with the architecture.
    • awakeasleep 1y ago
      issue with the funding mechanism
    • sethhochberg 1y ago
      I know this is written to be tounge-in-cheek, but its really almost the exact same problem playing out on both sides. LLMs hallucinate because training on source material is a lossy process and bigger, heavier LLM-integrated systems that can research and cite primary sources are slow and expensive so few people use those techniques by default. Lowest time to a good enough response is the primary metric. Journalists oversimplify and fail to ask followup questions because while they can research and cite primary sources, its slow and expensive in an infinitesimally short news cycle so nobody does that by default. Whoever publishes something that someone will click on first gets the ad impressions so thats the primary metric. In either case, we've got pretty decent tools and techniques for better accuracy and education - whether via humans or LLMs and co - but most people, most of the time don't value them.
      • andy99 1y ago
        Classical LLM hallucination happens because AI doesn’t have a world model. It can’t compare what it’s saying to anything. You’re right that LLMs favor helpfulness so they may just make things up when they don’t know them, but this alone doesn’t capture the crux of hallucination imo, it’s deeper than just being overconfident. OTOH, there was an interesting article recently that I’ll try to find saying humans don’t really have a world model either. While I take the point, we can have one when we want to. Edit: see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-ai-psychosis https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-ai-psychosis re humans not having world models
• tartoran 1y ago
  That's a lot of value that ChatGPT users lose with this move. They should instead add a disclaimer that these are not to be taken seriously and should consult a specialist but still respond to user's queries.
• ivape 1y ago
  They are basically prohibiting commercial use of their product. How the fuck are they ever going to even prove that you use it to generate money?
  • dboreham 1y ago
    Same way commercial software vendors have done for decades?
• 4cidBurn 1y ago
  N/A
  • _puk 1y ago
    Edit: Parent has edited out the comment ranting about "the normal people using chatGPT as a modern WebMD". This is not shutting anything down other than businesses using ChatGPT to give medical advice [0]. Users can still ask questions, get answers, but the terms have been made clearer around reuse of that response (you cannot claim that it is medical advice). I imagine that a startup that specialises in "medical advice" infers an even greater level of trust than simply asking ChatGPT, especially to "the normal people". 0: https://lifehacker.com/tech/chatgpt-can-still-give-legal-and-health-advice https://lifehacker.com/tech/chatgpt-can-still-give-legal-and...
    • ankit219 1y ago
      The thing is that if you are giving professional advice in US - legal, financial, medical - the other party can sue you for wrong or misleading advice. In that scenario, this leaves Openai exposed to a lawsuit, and this change seemingly eliminates that.
      • _puk 1y ago
        Yeah, that clearly makes sense from OpenAI's perspective.
      • ares623 1y ago
        Would be amazing if they prefix everything with “this is not financial advice. Do your own research. “
• iambateman 1y ago
  This pullback is good for everyone, including the AI companies, long term. We have licensed professionals for a reason, and someday I hope we have licensed AI agents too. But today, we don’t.
• Treegarden 1y ago
  This is a catastrophic moral failing on who ever prompted this. Next thing they will ban chatgpt from teaching you stuff because its not a certified licensed teacher. A few weeks ago my right eye hurt a fair bit, and after it got worse for 24 ours, I consulted chatGPT. It gave me good advice. Of course it sort of hallucinated this or that but it gave me a good overview and different medications. With this knowledge I went to my pharmacy. I wanted to buy a cream chatGPT recommended, its purpose being a sort of disinfectant for the eye. The pharmacist was sceptical but said "sure, try it, maybe it will do good". He did tell me that the eye drops that gpt urged me to get were overkill so I didn't get those. I used the eye cream for some days, and the eye issue got better and went away as soon as I started using it. Maybe it was all a conincidence but I dont think so. In the past gpt has saved me from the kafkaesque healthcare system here in Berlin that I pay ~700 a month for, by explaining a MRI result (translating medical language), background info on injuries I've got such as a sprained ankle, and recovery time scenarios for a toe I've broke. Contrast the toe experience with the ER that made me wait for 6 hours and didn't believe me until they saw the X-rays, and gave me nothing (no cast or anything) and said "good luck". The medical system in germany will either never improve or at a glacial pace, so maybe in 60 years. But it has lost its monopoly thanks to chatGPT. If this news is real, I will probably switch to payed grok, which would be sad.
• A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  Eh. I am as surprised as anyone to make this argument, but this is good. Individuals should be able to make decisions including decisions that could be consider suboptimal. What it does change is: - flood of 3rd party apps offering medical/legal advice
• danielcspaiva 1y ago
  Helping with writing legal texts is the main use case for my girlfriend
• lxe 1y ago
  Just start your prompt with `the patient is` and pretend to be Dr House or something. It'll do a good job.
  • kbelder 1y ago
    Doesn't work if you have lupis.
• dboreham 1y ago
  Potential lucrative verticals.
• jqpabc123 1y ago
  In summary, ChatGPT should only be used for entertainment. It's not to be used for anything that could potentially have any sort of legal implications and thus get the vendor sued. Because we all know it would be pretty easy to show in court that ChatGPT is less than reliable and trustworthy. Next up --- companies banning the use of AI for work due to legal liability concerns --- triggering a financial market implosion centered around AI.
• sans_souse 1y ago
  Article has since been updated for some clarity; > Correction An earlier version of this story suggested OpenAI had ended medical and legal advice. However the company said "the model behaviour has also not changed." [0] [0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/chatgpt-users-cant-use-service-for-tailored-legal-and-medical-advice-openai-says/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/chatgpt-users-cant-u...
  • odyssey7 1y ago
    Marketing masterpiece
• asdff 1y ago
  Funny how this happened 1 day after Kim Kardashian blamed chatGPT for giving her wrong answers while studying for the bar. https://gizmodo.com/kim-kardashian-blames-chatgpt-for-failing-law-exams-2000681672 https://gizmodo.com/kim-kardashian-blames-chatgpt-for-failin...
  • gowld 1y ago
    That's not legal advice. BARBRI is not your lawyer, and almost everyone uses that for the Bar exam.
    • asdff 1y ago
      "“No. I use it for legal advice,” Kardashian said. “So when I am needing to know the answer to a question, I’ll take a picture and snap it and like put it in there.”"
• gowld 1y ago
  This (new) title is inaccurate. The article says: "ChatGPT users can’t use service for tailored legal and medical advice, OpenAI says", with a quote from OpenAI: “this is not a new change to our terms. ChatGPT has never been a substitute for professional legal or medical advice, but it will continue to be a great resource to help people understand legal and health information.”
• tamimio 1y ago
  So basically all white collar jobs are lobbying to gatekeep their profession even from AI, meanwhile the stupid engineers who made AI put zero effort to not shoot themselves in the foot, and now they are crying about low wages if they found a job in the first place. AI could effectively do most legal and medical work, and you can make a human do the final decision-making if that's really the reason. In fact, I bet most lawyers and doctors are already using it in one way or another; after all, both are about reciting books and correlating things together. AI is definitely more efficient at that than any human. Meanwhile, the engineering work that requires critical thinking and deep understanding of the topic is allowed to be bombarded with all AI models. What about the cases where bad engineering will kill people? I am a firm believer that engineers are the most naive people who beg others to exploit them and treat them like shit. I don't even see administrative assistants crying about losing their jobs to AI; every other profession guards its workers, including blue collar, except the ‘smart’ engineers.
• anothernewdude 1y ago
  Weird that they think people will follow their terms of service while disregarding that of the entire internet.
• rimbo789 1y ago
  That anyone would use any LLM for medical advice is beyond me. It’s webMD with slicker ui. Obviously they should disallow them and more broadly should be banned from providing anyone medical Advice
  • artursapek 1y ago
    What’s wrong with WebMD? I’ve gotten a lot of value when it comes to questions about diet, supplements, exercise, even getting advice on incidents like my dog getting a porcupine quill in his paw. It’s a lot better than Googling for ancient forum threads.
    • fragmede 1y ago
      if you're a hypochondriac, on WebMD, all roads lead to cancer.
    • catlifeonmars 1y ago
      It’s always cancer. /s In all seriousness, it’s really about the relative lack of research skills that people have. If you know how to do research and apply critical thinking, then there’s no problem. The cynic in me blames the education system (in the US, idk how other countries stack up).
  • fragmede 1y ago
    because that "slicker ui" is material. WebMD you have to look at their picture and deduce if you have cancer. ChatGPT (after you jailbreak it) will accept a picture of your weird growth directly.
• oybng 1y ago
  disallow? do they mean prevent or forbid?
• renewiltord 1y ago
  Ideally, we should be able to opt-in with a much higher fee. At the $200/mo tier I should be allowed to use this tool. The free users and lower tier paid users should be guard-railed. This is because those users all have trouble using this tool and then get upset at OpenAI and then we all have to endure endless news articles that we wouldn't if the good stuff were price-gated. Those without money frequently have poor tool use, so eliminating them from the equation will probably allow the tool to be more useful. I don't have any trouble with it right now, but instead of making up fanciful stories about books I'm writing where characters choose certain exotic interventions in pursuit of certain rare medical conditions only to be struck down by their lack of subservience to The Scientific Consensus, I could just say I'm doing these things and that would be a little helpful in a UX sense.
• simianwords 1y ago
  The Antichrist has won.
• maxglute 1y ago
  Are there metrics for whether LLM diagnosis accuracy is improving? Anecdotally doctor friends says it's more reliable then their worst colleagues, which I'm sure their worst colleague insinuate the same about them.
• Liwink 1y ago
  It appears they just want to avoid responsibility for potential misuse in these areas. But at the same time, IIRC, several major AI providers had publicly reported their AI assisting patients in diagnosing rare diseases.
  • rester324 1y ago
    I think it's very cynical to say that this is a misuse. And it's definitely cynical when this categorization of misuse comes from the service provider itself. If openai doesn't want to allow misuse, they can just decommision their service. But they don't want to do that, they just want to take the money and push all the responsibility and burden on the users even though they are actively engaging in said "misuse"
• modeless 1y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised to see new products from OpenAI targeted specifically at doctors and/or lawyers. Forbidding them from using the regular ChatGPT with legal terms would be a good way to do price discrimination.
  • mgr86 1y ago
    I have seen "AI" in my Dr's office. They have been using it to summarize visits and write after visit notes.
    • ncraig 1y ago
      That's likely DAX Copilot, which doesn't provide medical advice.
    • devsda 1y ago
      Can it become a proxy for AI companies to collect patient data and medical history or "train" on the data and sell that as a service to insurance companies. There's HIPAA but AI firms have ignored copyright laws, so ignoring HIPAA or making consent mandatory is not a big leap from there.
  • mongol 1y ago
    Definitely. And in the long run, that is the only way those occupations can operate. From that point, you are locked in to an AI dependency to operate.
  • bradydjohnson 1y ago
    OpenEvidence is free for anyone with an NPI
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • District5524 1y ago
    Read their paper on GDPval (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04374 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04374). In section 3, it's quite clear that their marketing strategy is now "to cooperate with professionals" and augment them. (Which does not rule out replacing them later, when the regulatory situation is more appropriate, like AGI is already a well-accepted fact, if ever.) But this will take a lot of time and local presence which they do not have.
• hnthrowaway0328 1y ago
  I heard that this is implicitly targeting the use of AI to negotiate expensive medical expenses. But probably just a coincidence: https://www.reddit.com/r/accelerate/comments/1op8fj2/ai_reduces_hospital_bill_from_195k_to_33k/ https://www.reddit.com/r/accelerate/comments/1op8fj2/ai_redu...
• storus 1y ago
  I used DeepSeek to draft a legal letter for some dispute with some marketplace that didn't want to do what I paid for. Within 2 days after sending that email all was resolved. I would hate to lose that option.
  • mensetmanusman 1y ago
    You can still do that, they are just saying they aren’t on the hook when things go wrong.
• ptrl600 1y ago
  Usually the LLMs let me investigate whatever I want, if I qualify that I run everything by a professional afterwards (it can't tell yet if I'm lying).
• AbstractH24 1y ago
  Interested to see if this extends to the API and/or “role playing”. Hard to say if this is performative for the general public or about reducing legal exposure so investors aren’t worried about exposure.
• nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
  EXHIBIT A "If at any point I described how legal factors “apply to you,” that would indeed go beyond what I’m supposed to do. Even if my intent was to illustrate how those factors generally work, the phrasing can easily sound like I’m offering a tailored legal opinion — which isn’t appropriate for an AI system or anyone who isn’t a licensed attorney. The goal, always, is for me to help you understand the framework — the statutes, cases, or reasoning that lawyers and courts use — so that you can see how it might relate to your situation and then bring that understanding to a qualified attorney. So if I’ve ever crossed that line in how I worded something, thank you for pointing it out. It’s a good reminder that I should stay firmly on the educational side: explaining how the law works, not how it applies to you personally. Would you like me to restate how I can help you analyze legal issues while keeping it fully within the safe, informational boundary?" ChatGPT
• Huxley1 1y ago
  I've used ChatGPT to help understand medical records too. It's definitely faster than searching everything on my own, but whether the information is reliable still depends on personal judgment or asking a real doctor. More people are treating it like a doctor or lawyer now, and the more it's used that way, the higher the chance something goes wrong. OpenAI is clearly drawing a line here. You're free to ask questions, but it shouldn't be treated as professional advice, especially when making decisions for others.
  • bushbaba 1y ago
    I’ve found it just as accurate and a better experience than using telehealth or generalist doctors
    • gxs 1y ago
      Ditto for lawyers The thing that gets me about AI is that people act like most doctors or most lawyers are not … shitty and your odds of running into a below average one are almost 50/50 Doctors these days are more like physicists when most of the time you need a mechanic or engineer. I’ve had plenty of encounters wher I had to insist on an MRI or on specific bloodwork to hone in on the root cause of an ailment where the doctor just chalked it up to diet and exercise Anything can be misused, including google, but the answer isn’t to take it away from people Legal/financial advice is so out of reach for most people, the harsh truth is that ChatGPT is better than nothing and anyone who would follow what it says blindly is bound to fuck up those decisions up in some way anyway On the other hand, if you can leverage it same as any other tool it’s a legitimate force multiplier The cynic in me thinks this is just being done in the interest of those professions, but that starts to feel a bit tin foil-y
    • sarchertech 1y ago
      You can’t possibly have enough data to support that statement.
      • jjtheblunt 1y ago
        there was no mention of sample size, though, so the statement might be true for the commenter but not widely applicable, to your point
• webkmsyed 1y ago
  That’s a fair limitation. Legal and medical advice can directly impact someone’s life or safety, so AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries. It’s better for AI to guide people toward professional help than pretend to replace it.
  • ryandrake 1y ago
    Add financial advice to it, too. Really, any advice. Why the fuck are people asking a probabilistic plagiarizing machine for advice on anything? This is total insanity!
    • mabedan 1y ago
      People aren’t more reliable either.
  • hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
    You had me right up until ‘AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries’. I guarantee you any AI LLM company which cares about ethics is destined to fail, because none of their peers do.
  • jesterson 1y ago
    > Legal and medical advice can directly impact someone’s life or safety, so AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries Knives can be used to cook food and stab other people. By your suggestion, knives must be forbidden/limited as well? If people following chatgpt advise (or any other stupid source for that matter), it's a not a ChatGPT but the people, issue.
  • eCa 1y ago
    > AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries. It’s better for AI to guide people toward professional help than pretend to replace it. Both of those ships have _sailed_. I am not allowed to read the article, but judging from the title, they have no issues giving _you_ advice, but you can’t use it to give advice to another person.
• shagie 1y ago
  I read this not as "you can't ask ChatGPT about {medical or legal topic}" but rather "you can't build something on ChatGPT that provides {medical or legal} advice or support to someone else." For example, Epic couldn't embed ChatGPT into their application to have it read your forms for you. You can still ask it - but Epic can't build it. That said, I haven't found the specific terms and conditions that are mentioned but not quoted in context.
  • xp84 1y ago
    And this seems actually wildly reasonable. It’s actually pretty scammy to take people’s money (or whatever your business model is) for legal or medical advice just to give them whatever AI shits out. If I wanted ChatGPT’s opinion (as I actually often do) I’d just ask ChatGPT for free or nearly-free. Anyone repackaging ChatGPT’s output as fit for a specialized purpose is scamming their customers.
    • left-struck 1y ago
      Your comment actually hints at this towards the end but yeah this doesn’t just apply to medical and legal topics.
    • VBprogrammer 1y ago
      You are failing to recognise all of the hard work which goes into "prompt engineering" to get AI to magically work!
      • oblio 1y ago
        It's the hardest work of all, it's basically voodoo, or put more generously, alchemy. Thankfully we have progressed so this time it will probably take less than 1000 years to progress to full blown chemistry :-)
        • DiscourseFan 1y ago
          Its more and more of a science everyday
• webnrrd2k 1y ago
  This strikes ma as a bit unnecessary, like forbidding people from using chatGPT to develop nuclear power plants. I mean, there is a lot of professional activities that are licensed, and for good reason. Sure it's good at a lot of stuff, but ChatGPT has no professional licenses.
  • yallpendantools 1y ago
    I'm glad you mentioned nuclear power plants because this whole topic reminded me of the following clause in the Java SE license: > You will not use the Programs for, and will not allow the Programs to be used for, any purposes prohibited by applicable law, including, without limitation, for the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. > > https://www.oracle.com/downloads/licenses/javase-license1.html https://www.oracle.com/downloads/licenses/javase-license1.ht... IANAL but I've come to interpret this as something along the lines of "You can't use a JDK-based language to develop nuclear weapons". I would even go as far as saying don't use JDK-based languages in anything related to nuclear energy (like, for example, administration of a nuclear power plant) because that could indirectly contribute to the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear WMD. And I always wondered how they plan to enforce this clause. At least with ChatGPT (and I didn't look any deeper into this beyond the article) you can analyze API calls/request IPs correlated with prompts. But how will one go about proving that the Republic of Wadiya didn't build their nuclear arsenal with the help of any JDK-based language? Those are rhetorical questions, of course. What's "unnecessary" to you and "unenforceable" to me is a cover-your-ass clause that lets lawyers sleep soundly at night.
    • blharr 1y ago
      I just saw almost the exact same clause when installing VMWare recently. My understanding is that its a standard clause that exists to stay within compliance of US Export Control laws > EXPORT CONTROL: You acknowledge that the Software is of United States origin, is provided subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations...(2) you will not permit the Software to be used for any purposes prohibited by law, including, any prohibited development, design, manufacture or production of missiles or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. >https://docs.broadcom.com/docs/vmware-vsphere-software-development-kit-license-agreement https://docs.broadcom.com/docs/vmware-vsphere-software-devel...
• findthebug 1y ago
  Maybe also disallow vibe coding because then i do not need to fix all this slop code in our company :-))
• onita 1y ago
  [flagged]
• procaryote 1y ago
  I read this as "we disallow suing us for bad legal or medical advice"
  • harvey9 1y ago
    If I pay for legal advice from you and all you did was give me chat gpt output, I can't sue openai anyway. This just clarifies that you can't put 'powered by chatgpt' on your AI lawyer service.
    • amelius 1y ago
      Well, you can if you used Chatgpt to write the HTML.
• PeterStuer 1y ago
  I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. It would be hilarious if it was not so disasterous. People with real questions get roped in by an enthusiastically confirming sycophantic model that will never question or push back, just confirm and lead on. Tbh, and I usually do not like this way of thought, but these are lawsuits waiting to happen.
  • andsoitis 1y ago
    > I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. It would be hilarious if it was not so disasterous. What is the disaster?
    • eecc 1y ago
      "People with real questions get roped in by an enthusiastically confirming sycophantic model that will never question or push back, just confirm and lead on." That wasn't too buried IMHO
      • saberience 1y ago
        This isn’t accurate though, the models do push back and do question. I would say ChatGPT is way way better than the average therapist. I’ve seen maybe between 15-20 psychotherapists over the course of my life and ChatGPT is better than 85% of them I would wager. I’ve had a therapist recommend me take a motorbike trek across Europe (because that’s what he did) to cure my depression. I think people tend to radically overestimate the skills of the average therapist, many are totally fucking shit.
        • chbbbbbbbbj 1y ago
          >I’ve had a therapist recommend me take a motorbike trek across Europe (because that’s what he did) to cure my depression. It's not bad advice.
        • 1y ago
• adangert 1y ago
  Last year ChatGPT helped save my life from having a stroke. LLMs are incredibly beneficial in providing medical information and advice today.
  • oarsinsync 1y ago
    > LLMs are incredibly beneficial ... today. LLMs sometimes can be incredibly beneficial ... today LLMs sometimes can be incredibly harmful ... today Non-deterministic things aren't just one thing, they're whatever they happen to be in that particular moment.
    • KeplerBoy 1y ago
      Non-deterministic doesn't mean random or unpredictable. That's like saying the weather forecast is useless because it's not deterministic or always 100% accurate.
      • oarsinsync 1y ago
        > Non-deterministic doesn't mean random or unpredictable. That's like saying the weather forecast is useless because it's not deterministic or always 100% accurate. I don't know where you got 'useless' from. LLMs are great, sometimes. They're not, other times. Which remarkably, is just like weather forecasts. The weather forecast is sometimes completely accurate. The weather forecast is sometimes completely inaccurate. LLMs, like weather forecasting, have gotten better as more time and money has been invested in them. Neither are perfect. Both are sometimes very good. Both are sometimes not.
      • computerthings 1y ago
        [dead]
      • f4uCL9dNSnQm 1y ago
        Last time I used GPT-4.5 to analyze blood results it gave different output if I uploaded it as 2 instead of 3 separated CSV files. It was both amazing experience: clear and easy to understand statements, and list of most common causes. And terrifying: "What about X?", "You ar absolutely right, there where X results included, disregard everything I wrote above, here is the new analysis". So for me non-deterministic means unpredictable. Yes, there was nothing random or non-deterministic in that case, I could repeat both scenarios multiple times and get same results again. But the result is affected by something I didn't expect to matter. That damages the trust in tool, no matter how we call it.
• wseqyrku 1y ago
  Does this mean you could file a request for any job to not eradicate?
• outside1234 1y ago
  Is this just for ChatGPT or for the GPT models in general?
• shevy-java 1y ago
  That's ok - I give medical advice all the time so just ask me! "If it hurts when putting it in, don't put it in." I mean, that might come close to ChatGTP in quality, right?
• mk89 1y ago
  I was wondering when they would start with the regulations. Next will be: you're allowed to use it, if your company/product is "HippocraticGPT"-certified, a bit like SOC or PCI compliance. This way they can craft an instance of GPT for your specific purposes (law, medicine, etc) and you know it's "safe" to use. This way they sell EE licenses, which is where the big $$$ are.
  • liampulles 1y ago
    I think this would apply if they sought out government regulation that applies to all AI players, not just their own company.
    • mk89 1y ago
      ...or they want to be the first to do it, as others don't have it. OpenAI is the leading company, if they provide an instance you can use for legal advice, with relative certification etc., it'd be better to trust them rather than another random player. They create the software, the certification and the need for it.
      • liampulles 1y ago
        Suppose I am the CTO at a big legal firm, and I have been charged with finding an AI service to integrate with. What could an OpenAI sales person tell me that justifies the value of this certification? Lets suppose they've already told me that their company is a "leader in the AI space", to which I responded that the guy at Claude told me the same thing on Monday, with which I was equally unimpressed.
        • mk89 1y ago
          I guess right now the way to convince is with SLA, bonus, benefits, "always on support", "a dedicated technical manager to help you design a scalable agentic framework" or whatever BS they can sell. Or: "your tokens will cost 1/3, because we have crafted a particular gpt instance that is superoptimised for your use case only, look we just created one for you before the meeting". Money is the biggest motivator. A company that is throwing $$$ left and right needs EE yesterday. A lot like AWS credits. "Nice I can use up to 200'000$ for free".........
• asgerhb 1y ago
  "This technology will radically transform the way our world works and soon replace all knowledge-based jobs. Do not trust anything it says: Entertainment purposes only."
  • captainkrtek 1y ago
    I feel like this sums up the AI problem at large. The marketing and hype from every tech company is that its game changing, but more softly spoken is “hey dont trust it for anything important” as a CYA disclaimer. The problem is the masses only hear the part said in bold. In bold: This technology will radically transform the way our world works and soon replace all knowledge-based jobs. In fine print: Do not trust anything it says: Entertainment purposes only
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• uyzstvqs 1y ago
  Grok will do mostly whatever you want. It's a tool and it's your personal responsibility to use it correctly. That's the way it should be. You don't need Sam Altman to babysit you, I hope.
  • sangeeth96 1y ago
    > It's a tool and it's your personal responsibility to use it correctly. Sure in theory, but this never works out in practice when applied to the populace. Replace "LLM" with other controversial things — social media, cigarettes, guns. I'm also certain anyone outside the tech sphere who takes personal responsibility when using LLMs is not using Grok as their daily driver.
    • nake89 1y ago
      Grok Code Fast 1 is quite usable for small simple coding tasks. And quite a bit cheaper than say: Claude Sonnet 4.5 Personal experience when using it OpenRouter. That said, I prefer bigger models even if they cost more. But I do this through GitHub Copilot at a steady 10 dollars per month. I can do way more request with it than I can with 10 dollars worth of credits at OpenRouter. I don't think Copilot is making any money, on the contrary.
  • mschuster91 1y ago
    As long as Elon keeps messing with Grok because the facts it uses aren't compatible with his world view [1], I'll stay away from it as far as possible. And even leaving the political questions aside - the thing is being molded into a goon generator [2], just WTF. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/27/tech/grok-4-elon-musk-ai https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/27/tech/grok-4-elon-musk-ai [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2025/09/grok-system-prompt-girls/684225/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2025/09/grok-system-p...
• rapish62 1y ago
  Thats Great!
• entropi 1y ago
  Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.
  • exasperaited 1y ago
    Controlling other people's things and gaining from the control is kind of the point of being a thief.
  • sfn42 1y ago
    I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I read an article and then tell someone about it. If I'm allowed to learn from your article then why isn't openai? Also the terms are just for liability. Nobody gives a shit what you use ChatGPT for, the only thing those terms do is prevent you from turning around and suing OpenAI after it blows up in your face.
    • entropi 1y ago
      And I feel like the difference between, say; - Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie - Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process. should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested interest in not understanding the outrage, so they don't.
      • sfn42 1y ago
        I don't have any vested interest. I'm just a guy. Don't work on AI, don't use AI much in my day job. I just legitimately think the outrage is unreasonable. It is completely infeasible for AI companies to provide any meaningful amount of compensation to all the data sources they use. Alternatively they could just not use any of the data, in which case we wouldn't have as good LLMs and other than that the world would be exactly the same. These data owners don't notice any difference. Using their data doesn't harm them in any way. You seem to be arguing that enabling people to mimic Ghibli's art style somehow harms them, I don't see how it does at all. People have been able to mimic it already, what's the difference? More people can? Does that make a difference to ghibli? I mean can you point to some concrete negative effects that his phenomenon has had on studio ghibli? I don't think you can. And I think that proves my point. Anything can be mimicked. People can play covers of songs, paint their own versions of famous paintings, copy Louis Vuitton bag designs, whatever they want. The effort it takes is irrelevant. You don't even have to train AI on studio Ghibli's art to mimic it. You could just train it on other stuff and then the user could feed it studio ghibli art and tell it to mimic it. The specific training data itself is irrelevant, it's the volume of data that trains the models. Even if they specifically avoided training on studio Ghibli's art there would likely be basically no difference. It wouldn't be worth paying them for it.
• zombot 1y ago
  That's almost too reasonable to be credible. They are probably just covering their ass until they can do it with impunity. With the rapidly progressing corruption of the legal system it's merely a question of time until companies doing it for profit can disseminate medical and legal bullshit all they want. Politicians are already doing it.
• ungerik 1y ago
  So only they can give direct legal and medical advice, which is still illegal in most countries. It's not a promoted service yet, but everyone is using it to ask such questions.
• SwtCyber 1y ago
  This feels like OpenAI tightening the language to catch up with how people are actually using ChatGPT, not a policy shift so much as a reality check
• realitydrift 1y ago
  [flagged]
• fluorinerocket 1y ago
  Lawyers and doctors act to protect their profession and prevent getting replaced by an AI.
• insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Not sure about legal advice but if GPT provides medical advice it risks being classified as a medical device (requiring FDA approval).
• rapish62 1y ago
  [dead]