this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
121 points (100.0% liked)

News

30947 readers
2362 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

Papers gotta get clicks. Maybe capitalism is the real villain here.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder if it has something to do with this:

"users who turn to popular chatbots when exhibiting signs of severe crises risk"

Blaming the chatbot doesn't seem like the smartest perspective, the title is fucking bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

There’s a lot of questionable things that people in crisis turn to. Intoxicants, religion, c/tenforward, fascism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

It's as simple as "correlation does not imply causation".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago

The title makes it sound like it's all people.
A better one might be "ChatGPT is failing to help people in crises, and many are dying"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 hours ago

As much as I despise all the hype around AI, it's that hype that's probably leading vulnerable people to these ends

[–] [email protected] 21 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago

A show called The Starlost.

The Starlost is a Canadian-produced science fiction television series created by writer Harlan Ellison and broadcast in 1973 on CTV in Canada and syndicated to local stations in the United States. The show's setting is a huge generational colony spacecraft called Earthship Ark, which following an unspecified accident has gone off course.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's like reading an article about a petrol refining company, who, having prior experience with gasoline as a useful and profitable substance, decides to seek venture capital for the development of a petrol-based fire-extinguisher. They obtain the funding - presumably because some people with money just wants to see the world burn and / or because being rich and having brains is not necessarily strongly correlated - but after having developed the product, tests conclusively prove the project's early detractors right: The result is surprisingly always more fire, not less. And they "don't know how to fix it, while still adhering to the vision of a petrol-based fire-extinguisher".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago

The "fight fire with fire" marketing campaign is getting a lot of engagement so we're releasing the product anyway.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

So, it’s not ChatGPT, it’s all LLMs. And the people who go through this are using AI wrong. You cannot blame the tool because some people prompt it to make them crazy.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

But you can blame the overly eager way it has been made available without guidance, restriction, or regulation. The same discussion applies to social media, or tobacco, or fossil fuels: the companies didn't make anyone use it for self destruction, but they also didn't take responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

First nuanced argument I've seen on this topic. Great point. Just like bottle manufacturers started the litter bug campaign. I think the problem with llm's has to do with profit-motive as well - specifically broad data sets with conflicting shit, like the water bunny next to general relativity made for broad appeal. AI gets a lot more useful when you curate it for a specific purpose. Like, I dunno. Trying influence elections or check consistency between themes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Kitchen knife manufacturers, razor blades, self-help books, Helter Skelter, the list of things that people can “use wrong” is endless.

PEBCAK

[–] [email protected] 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Where is this epidemic of kitchen knives being misused?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Since when is this an epidemic?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up, I thought you'd be the one to know.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I never used the word epidemic. I don’t believe the article use the word epidemic.

If we want to talk about things that are more damaging to People, let’s talk about social media. That is exponentially more damaging than AI.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, you have concerns about not banning kitchen knives, razor blades, and self-help books. I wanna hear the argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You are creating a conversation that does not exist. I don’t have concerns about not banning kitchen knives? I’m comparing tools to tools and you are turning a conversation to something you feel like screaming and yelling about because this is the dopamine time for you.

I will not speak to someone who puts words in my mouth, and doesn’t use their ears.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If you don't want to restrict kitchen knives, why would you enter them into a discussion about "things ailing society" then? What point did you think you were making?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t want to restrict any of those things including AI, what are you talking about?

Look, it is very clear that you aren’t interested in reading you were just interested in screaming so I’m not wasting my time on you. Thiswill be my last comment feel free to continue on your own

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

Well, I don't want to restrict kitchen knives either; I don't really see the point. So, I guess we agree it was kind of a stupid thing to bring up.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Kitchen knife, razor blades are a different category, for self-help books also. LLM is completely different category and there is no point of comparing knife to an llm besides to do a relativization.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

The tools are relative. Pick a tool. It can be used wrong. You are special pleading, dogmatism, intellectual dishonesty.

If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, now imagine the tool is advertised in a way that tells you to use it wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago

"Gilette - Follow The Road, Don't Cross It™"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's not about banning or refusing AI tools, it's about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.

Your argument is the equivalent of "guns don't kill people" or blaming drivers for Tesla's so-called "full self-driving" errors leading to accidents, because "full self-driving" switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?

I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.

If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There's nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.

Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there's probably government regulation needed, as it's clear by now that the companies won't regulate themselves.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.

I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.

But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won't do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago

I feel the guardrails are in place, and that they will be continuously improved. If a person finds a situation where an AI suggests they kill themselves without being prompted, say, during a brainstorm about strawberry cake consistency—if you were dead you wouldn’t have this problem—would be… concerning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.

The point is not to compare but analyze how AI affects us and the world around us, society. By saying "it's just a tool", or "knives can also be missuesd" you relativize discussion and that rethoric just contributes to defending openAI and other big techs and even helping them banalize the issue.

From what i witnessed is that people lose agency, get and belive fake info, everything becoming slop, people loosing jobs getting replace by more workers that are less payed etc.

EDIT: And no it's not the same as knife or razor or a gun, it will never be.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

You could say the same about social media and the entire internet. Would you choose to regulate that?

I recall in the mid 90s a group of people on the street corner protesting AOL (America OnLine) and saying the internet should be stopped.

They may have had a point, but the technology wasn’t to blame for the shit that’s it’s used for.

The vague way you talk about AI makes be think that you don’t know much about it. what do you use AI for? Is it ChatGPT?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It isnt exactly unheard of for regulations to be placed in the design, sale, or labeling of stuff because of misuse, to be fair. Even assuming the fault of using a tool wrong is with the user, assigning blame does not actually do anything about the problem. If enough people consistently misuse a thing in a certain way, there can be a general social benefit to trying to stop that type of misuse even if the people misusing it "are the problem", and since those people clearly arent going to just start using the thing properly just because someone pointed the finger of blame at them, addressing the problem is likely to take some kind of design or systemic change to make it more difficult for them to use that tool in that way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I think that more effective regulation would be on social media

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

Haha. Vote for Elon!

/s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

So what is the correct usage?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It will give you whatever you want. Just like social media and google searches. The information exists.

When you tell it to give you information in a way you want to hear it, you’re just talking to yourself at that point.

People should probably avoid giving it prompts that fuel their mania. However, since mania is totally subjective and the topics range broadly, what does an actual regulation look like?

What do you use AI for?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, because someone in a manic state can definitely be trusted to carefully analyze their prompts to minimize bias.

What do you use AI for?

I don’t.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So… you have no clue at all what any of this is. Got it. I’ll bet you blame video games for violence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, because video games are definitely the same as a search engine that tells you all your delusions are real.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Tell me more about how you’ve never ever used it and that everything you’re saying is influenced by the media and other anti-ai user comments.

Let’s see what happens when I google for UFOs or chemtrails or deep state or anti-vaccine, etc. how much user created delusional content will I find?