←back to thread

A teen was suicidal. ChatGPT was the friend he confided in

(www.nytimes.com)
443 points jaredwiener | 3 comments | 26 Aug 25 14:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.667s | source
Show context
slg ◴[26 Aug 25 21:15 UTC] No.45032427[source]▶
It says a lot about HN that a story like this has so much resistance getting any real traction here.
replies(4): >>45032449 #>>45032468 #>>45032863 #>>45037578 #
dkiebd ◴[26 Aug 25 21:58 UTC] No.45032863[source]▶
This sucks but the only solution is to make companies censor the models, which is a solution we all hate, so there’s that.
replies(2): >>45033001 #>>45036127 #
slg ◴[26 Aug 25 22:12 UTC] No.45033001[source]▶
Thank you, “we just have to accept that these systems will occasionally kill children” is a perfect example of the type of mindset I was criticizing.
replies(8): >>45033028 #>>45033147 #>>45033587 #>>45035669 #>>45036009 #>>45036650 #>>45037010 #>>45047038 #
1. jackjeff ◴[27 Aug 25 06:16 UTC] No.45036009[source]▶
Don’t cars and ropes and drills occasionally kill people too? Society seems to have accepted that fact long ago.

Somehow we expect the digital world to be devoid of risks.

Cryptography that only the good guys can crack is another example of this mindset.

Now I’m not saying ClosedAI look good on this, their safety layer clearly failed and the sycophantic BS did not help.

But I reckon this kind of failure more will always exist in LLMs. Society will have to learn this just like we learned cars are dangerous.

replies(2): >>45041197 #>>45041558 #
2. slg ◴[27 Aug 25 15:40 UTC] No.45041197[source]▶
Another great example of the HN mindset. How can you say "their safety layer clearly failed" without being able to acknowledge that they should be held responsible for that failure and that we should work to reduce the likelihood of similar failures in the future? If a car, rope, or drill had some sort of failure in their manufacturing that killed people, those companies would be held responsible. Why can't we do the same with OpenAI?

This isn't a desire for "the digital world to be devoid of risks", it is a desire for people and companies in the digital world to be held responsible for the harm they are causing. Yet, people here seem to believe that no one should ever be held responsible for the damage caused by the software they create.

3. kunley ◴[27 Aug 25 16:08 UTC] No.45041558[source]▶
Cars and ropes don't "talk" and don't make an impression of a human being.