But in her order, U.S. District Court Judge Anne Conway said the company’s “large language models” — an artificial intelligence system designed to understand human language — are not speech.
But in her order, U.S. District Court Judge Anne Conway said the company’s “large language models” — an artificial intelligence system designed to understand human language — are not speech.
I get that hating on anything AI-related is trendy these days - and I especially understand the pain of a grieving mother. However, interpreting this as a chatbot encouraging someone to kill themselves is extremely dishonest when you actually look at the logs of what was said.
You can’t simultaneously argue that LLMs lack genuine understanding, empathy, and moral reasoning - and therefore shouldn’t be trusted - while also saying they should have understood that “coming home” was a reference to suicide. That’s holding it to a human-level standard of emotional awareness and contextual understanding while denying it the cognitive capacities that such standards assume.
Source
I would not have understood that to have anything to do with suicide… do they use the phrase coming home to mean death or suicide in the game of thrones show?
You have to read the other chat logs. Arstechnica has a good summary I think, the link between “coming home” and suicide is specific to the kids chats with these AI.
Iirc when he did make it more explicit, the AI responded with “no, don’t do that” kind of responses. He just kept the metaphor up when the AI didn’t have such an association in its training data and just responded as a lover would respond to their love saying they’d come home in their training data.
Though I’d say that if a kid would shoot themself in response to a chatbot saying anything to them, the issue is more about them having any access to a gun than anything about the chatbot itself. Unless maybe if the chatbot is volunteering weaknesses common in gun safes, though even then I’d say more fault lies with the parent choosing a shitty safe and raising a kid that would kill themself on the advice of their chatbot girlfriend.
All you need to argue is that its operators have responsibility for its actions and should filter / moderate out the worst.
That still assumes level of understanding that these models don’t have. How could you have prevented this one when suicide was never explicitly mentioned?
You can have multiple layers of detection mechanisms, not just within the LLM the user is talking to
I’m told sentiment analysis with LLM is a whole thing, but maybe this clever new technology doesn’t do what it’s promised to do? 🤔
Tldr make it discourage unhealthy use, or else at least be honest in marketing and tell people this tech is a crapshot which probably is lying to you
That AI knew exactly what it was doing and it’s about time these AIs started facing real prison time instead of constantly getting a pass
Unironically, the provider of the chat bot should be liable for anything the chat bot says. Don’t fire humans so youn can hide behind a neural network.
But this ain’t suicide encouragement.
LLMs are tools. They are not sentient. You must not use a tool if you can’t handle it
Removed by mod
Lock it up! Lock it up! Lock it up!
You could think of LLMs as a glorified ‘magic 8 ball’, since that’s about as much ‘understanding’ it has.