3 ms·
Explicit accusation that this was caused by chatbots + call for general regulation is right there in the article: "AFP spoke to several members about their exp
by gordian-mind 5mo ago
Explicit accusation that this was caused by chatbots + call for general regulation is right there in the article:
"AFP spoke to several members about their experiences. All warned that the world has to wake up to the threat unregulated AI chatbots pose to mental health.
Questions are also being asked about whether AI companies are doing enough to protect vulnerable people."
This, in time, might be used to nerf the models that we use. Of course, one actor is singled out:
"There has also been a recent rise in people spiralling while using Elon Musk's xAI's Grok chatbot, he said."
- embedding-shape 5mo agoI don't think "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" even makes sense to someone saying "Maybe AI chatbots aren't great for people's mental health" or even "Are the AI companies actually trying to prevent AI chatbots being bad for people's mental health?", both statements seem fine and doesn't imply any causation as far as I understand.
- gordian-mind 5mo agoThis cautious statement, which would indeed be fine, is an invention of yours when it comes to the article. They assert causation, calling for AI companies to be disciplined and punished, praising the EU online censorship campaign, arguing this is a big experiment: "Millar called for AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots, saying the European Union has been more assertive in regulating Big Tech than the US or Canada. He believes spirallers like him have unwittingly been caught in a massive global experiment."
- embedding-shape 5mo agoThey're calling for "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" which regardless of what happened before, sounds like a reasonable thing to do, you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this. I still don't see where the whole "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" comes in, so because this person was personally affected, they shouldn't reach the conclusion that AI companies need to be held responsible for whatever effects they have?
- gordian-mind 5mo ago"you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this" You actually very much do. If there is no causation, then it is not "their impact". Otherwise, you're just advocating for rope-makers to be punished for wrong-use of their product. Which is, of course, foolish.
- embedding-shape 5mo agoOk, put another way, do you think we clearly know exactly the pros and cons for individuals to use AI chatbots for mental health treatment? If you don't clearly know exactly those things, wanting anything else than "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" as a first step would be utterly foolish and de-humanizing.
- gordian-mind 5mo agoUsing uncertainty to punish your perceived enemies is called "injustice".
- embedding-shape 5mo agoNo, figuring out harms is called "thinking before acting", and unless you want laws and regulations written in blood (something I personally want to avoid), you need to think before acting. Figuring out what harms something in wide use has, is a good thing, and doesn't mean "ban it today", it means "lets figure it out".
- gordian-mind 5mo agoLanguage this vague has a name: it's called "bullshit".
- embedding-shape 5mo agoReminds me of another slang, probably applicable to this entire discussion: "pointless"