(www.theguardian.com)

165 points distalx | 1 comments | 10 May 25 15:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source

Show context

caseyy ◴[11 May 25 00:28 UTC] No.43950190[source]▶

I know many pro-LLM people here are very smart, but sometimes it's wise to heed the words of world-renowned experts on a subject.

Otherwise, you may end up defending this and it's really foolish:

> “Seriously, good for you for standing up for yourself and taking control of your own life,” it reportedly responded to a user, who claimed they had stopped taking their medication and had left their family because they were “responsible for the radio signals coming in through the walls”.

replies(4): >>43950334 #>>43950546 #>>43952241 #>>43956082 #

mvdtnz ◴[11 May 25 00:59 UTC] No.43950334[source]▶

>>43950190 #

As much as I tend to defer to experts, you must also be weary of experts whose very livelihoods are at risk. They may not have your interests at heart.

replies(2): >>43950406 #>>43952558 #

1. 52-6F-62 ◴[11 May 25 09:28 UTC] No.43952558[source]▶

>>43950334 #

And the tech bros pushing magic chatbots that they nor anyone else has any insight into but from which the same tech bros derive an even higher salary and more opulent livelihood and collect additional rent from certainly do have your interests at heart?

Fuck me. Maybe that guy on the street corner selling salvation or “cuckane” really was dealing in the real thing, too, eh?

↑

'It cannot provide nuance': UK experts warn AI therapy chatbots are not safe