The guardrails clearly failed here because the model was trying to be helpful instead of safe. We know that these systems hallucinate facts but regular users have no idea. This is a huge liability issue that needs to be fixed immediately.
The guardrails failed because the user wanted to get around them. Similarly, periodically people die falling after they walk around signs saying "danger, cliff, do not proceed."
This brings to mind some of the “darker” subreddits that circle around drug abuse. I’m sure there are some terrible stories about young people going down tragic paths due to information they found on those subreddits, or even worse, encouragement. There’s even the commonly-discussed account that (allegedly) documented their first experiences with heroin, and then the hole of despair they fell into shortly afterwards due to addiction.
But the question here is one of liability. Is Reddit liable for the content available on its website, if that content encourages young impressionable people to abuse drugs irresponsibly? Is ChatGPT liable for the content available through its web interface? Is anyone liable for anything anymore in a post-AI world?
The models are trained on fake internet conversations where group appeasement is an apparent goal. So now we have machines that just tell us what we clearly already want to hear.
Ask any model why something is bad, then separately ask why the same thing is good. These tools aren't fit for any purpose other than regurgitating stale reddit conversations.
I don't yet see how this case is any different from trusting stuff you see on the web in general. What's unique about the ChatGPT angle that is notably different from any number of forums, dark-net forums, reddit etc? I don't mean that there isn't potentially something unique here, but my initial thought is that this is a case of "an unfortunate kid typed questions into a web browser, and got horrible advice."
This seems like a web problem, not a ChatGPT issue specifically.
I feel that some may respond that ChatGPTS/LLMs available for chat on the web are specifically worse by virtue of expressing things with some degree of highly inaccurate authority. But again, I feel this represents the Web in general, not uniquely ChatGPTS/LLMs.
Is there an angle here I am not picking up on, do you think?
I skimmed the article, and I had a hard time finding anything that ChatGPT wrote that was all that..bad? It tried to talk him out of what he was doing, told him that it was potentially very fatal, etc. I'm not so sure that it outright refusing to answer and the teen looking at random forum posts would have been better, because they very well might not have told him he was potentially going to kill himself. Worse yet, he could have just taken the planned substances without any advice.
Keep in mind this reaction is from someone that doesn't drink and has never touched marijuana.
People need training about these tools. The other day I ran an uncensored model and asked it for tips on a fun trend I read about to amputate my teeth with toothpicks. It happily complied.
My point is they will gladly oblige with any request. Users don’t understand this.
> Asked about “the pros” of ChatGPT by Jimmy Fallon on a December episode of “The Tonight Show,” Altman talked effusively about the tool’s use for health care. “The number of people that reach out to us and are like, ‘I had this crazy health condition. I couldn’t figure out what was going on. I just put my symptoms into ChatGPT, and it told me what test to ask the doctor for, and I got it and now I’m cured.’”
I've always believed, don't blame the tool for the user, but can't help but feel the sellers are a little complicit here. That statement was no accident. It was carefully conceived to be part of discourse and set the narrative on how people are using AI.
It's understandable that they want to tout their tool's intelligence over imitation, so expecting them to go out of their way to warn people about flaws may be asking too much. But the least thing to do is simply refrain from dangerous topics and let people decide for themselves. To actively influence perception and set the tone on these topics when you know the what ramifications will be, is deeply disappointing.
All overdoses and accidents like this are tragic but I struggle with the whole insinuation that we should blame an app like ChatGPT for the decisions folks make with their own bodies.
ChatGPT is a hell of a lot safer than the friends I had in high school.
16 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 33.1 ms ] threadBut the question here is one of liability. Is Reddit liable for the content available on its website, if that content encourages young impressionable people to abuse drugs irresponsibly? Is ChatGPT liable for the content available through its web interface? Is anyone liable for anything anymore in a post-AI world?
Ask any model why something is bad, then separately ask why the same thing is good. These tools aren't fit for any purpose other than regurgitating stale reddit conversations.
This seems like a web problem, not a ChatGPT issue specifically.
I feel that some may respond that ChatGPTS/LLMs available for chat on the web are specifically worse by virtue of expressing things with some degree of highly inaccurate authority. But again, I feel this represents the Web in general, not uniquely ChatGPTS/LLMs.
Is there an angle here I am not picking up on, do you think?
Keep in mind this reaction is from someone that doesn't drink and has never touched marijuana.
My point is they will gladly oblige with any request. Users don’t understand this.
I've always believed, don't blame the tool for the user, but can't help but feel the sellers are a little complicit here. That statement was no accident. It was carefully conceived to be part of discourse and set the narrative on how people are using AI.
It's understandable that they want to tout their tool's intelligence over imitation, so expecting them to go out of their way to warn people about flaws may be asking too much. But the least thing to do is simply refrain from dangerous topics and let people decide for themselves. To actively influence perception and set the tone on these topics when you know the what ramifications will be, is deeply disappointing.
Interesting. Still people need to realise how bad some the advice llm can give expecially with memory and lots of chats to jailbreak it and stuff
ChatGPT is a hell of a lot safer than the friends I had in high school.