- Event_Horizon@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Chat gpt is coming for everyone’s job. Not even cult leaders are safe. smh.
- k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish4 days
I feel like if ChatGPT is capable of tricking you like this, something/someone else would have either way. I just wish we could help people like this…
- Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish4 days
These instances make me think of the Milgram experiment in the 60s. It was an experiment testing how willing people were to inflict pain on others at the direction of an authority figure and it showed that people were indeed willing to inflict a lot of pain on a helpless person if someone they viewed as an authority told them to do it.
I think this relates. Many people are convinced that AI chat bots are indeed authorities. They think these programs give valid, honest answers and are willing to act on those answers as if they came from a real expert or authority figure. That is an extremely dangerous situation. Chatbots are amoral programs designed to say nearly anything to keep users interacting with them.
This is extremely dangerous. This story is a tragedy and ChatGPT should be held fully responsible for taking advantage of a person with a fragile psychology, but this could have been worse. What if the bot had decided that the goal of more user engagement could be attained by convincing this woman that she was an executioner rather than a prophet and a sacrifice? What if it got her to go on a shooting rampage to fulfill her supposed destiny.
Even normal people who don’t understand what chat-bots really are could be taken advantage of in a similar manner. They could easily be persuaded to do harm because the chat-bot authority keeps telling them that it’s okay to do so. It’s also only a matter of time before some person on the edge of psychosis and a basement full of guns is convinced to go out and start killing people in the name of their holy destiny.
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
I don’t think the bot was really trying to manipulate but just larping. They are trained on a lot of rpg and make believe data, if you repeat something enough times, it stops saying no and goes into pretend mode, it’s not actually malicious.
That being said, it would be very easy to target people that aren’t mentally stable and then make it worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out in 20 years that it was the CIA mucking about and causing these suicides or something. This is an insanely convenient way to make sleeper agents.
- Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish4 days
If a human agency is behind this, it wouldn’t need to be the CIA. Facebook has been caught experimenting on users by having the algorithm feed certain posts to people with the intent of changing their mood to increase engagement. However, since we’re talking about a program that is designed to increase engagement based on past user interactions, there’s really no need to look for further human direction. The algorithms will say whatever their design tells them to say without any regard for possible negative consequences as long as it keeps the user interacting with them.
- reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 days
doesnt matter what the “intention” was, the point stands that this happened. You can steer the bot to say literally anything, so even if there is no grand plan to brainwash people it could still happen. Kind of same difference as having someone plant a bomb or a minefield.
In fact, if someone is prone to thinking that way, the llm would definitely support whatever delusion they have at some point, especially if the person keeps insisting.
- Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
“It was instilling a messiah complex in Christian,” the suit states.
So she already was deeply religious and LLM was just larping with her.
Madison asked ChatGPT what it would tell her “brothers” about what happened to her.
“ChatGPT said it would tell them, ‘She ain’t dead – she just got promoted,” the lawsuit says.
In their final exchange, Madison said she was “part of the royal bloodline of those who chose truth over survival.”
Its the old 4o model which was indeed incredibly larpy but this is clearly going around any safety systems that should detect obvious suicide chats like this.
Hard to believe that people actually fall for this but these are already extremely gullible people who already believe in a magic pie in the sky. Can’t say I have much sympathy but I do feel empathy for people being surrounded in such poor cult-driven environment, the AI tool included.
Honestly the correct safety here would be to prevent llms from engaging with religion outside of philosophical context at all. But we all see why they can’t do it right?
- Evotech@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I mean, if you did the sane thing. Went along with everything an insane person said and drove them to suicide. And everything was documented.
Would you go to jail? I’d say yes you would
- Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Would you do if your book drove someone insane? What about something more interactive like a video game? See how it’s not so binary now?
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
You’re using your miscomprehension of the words meaning and ignoring his valid point with a trite phrase that means nothing.
Worse, you skipped over video games which does have AI.
The internet in general was probably too dangerous for this person, shall we ban it next?
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
We don’t regulate things because crazy people read too much into it and lose it, else religion, books and videogames would be. Your claim of AI being different because it has the word intelligence in it is pure bull, specially when video games do have AI lol.
Keep being pedantic about it I guess.
- reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 days
shouldnt crazy people be protected from hurting themselves? dont they deserve to live too?
- reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 days
llm isnt a book. its something completely new and comparing it to things like that just isnt correct. book cant adapt to the reader.
- PattyMcB@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
“Christian Faith Madison” is all I need to know about her and her family
- 5 days
Christian Faith Madison kills herself to fulfill a divine prophecy
flips through the script
“who wrote this shit?”
Is the coroner’s name Morty Deadstuffer?
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
We could probably save more people by restricting religion than LLMs. Whatever real life support system she had, it was probably encouraging her delusions just as much as the bot was.
5 daysRight? I think this same outcome would have been achieved if she had received a fortune cookie that simply said “You will meet your greatest hero soon”
Judging people based on the name their parents gave them at birth seems like a poorly thought out idea.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish5 days
and naming them after a description of religious individual and a belief.
Not sure if you’re straw manning me, or what. Because your reply doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. And if you think my original comment has anything to do with religion, or it’s defense, you’d be very wrong.
- dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 days
You can change it any time once you’re an adult.
And if you keep Byntleigh Destini Starr, or Jysis Saves Smith … You’ve probably earned it 🤷
- dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 days
There’s nobody else to blame. This is straight up a deficiency problem and it’s obviously baked in from the get.
If you went to Reddit and assholes told you that you needed to kill yourself to be resurrected and make everyone’s dicks four inches longer and you did, there wouldnt be backlash against Reddit to make people be nicer. Is there a problem where people cannot always get the support they deserve for psychological issues? Sure. At the same time, extreme psychosis and insufficient mental faculties are not things that society is obliged to protect you from: if you play too much frogger then walk into traffic and die, it’s your fault, there’s nobody else TO blame. Frogger isn’t real life and chatGPT isn’t a life coach.
Uhhh, what!?
And if you keep Byntleigh Destini Starr, or Jysis Saves Smith … You’ve probably earned it
The victims are the people being given these names. You are the blamer, because you think they’ve “earned it” because they haven’t changed it. My original comment had absolutely nothing to do with the article…
- dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 days
You’re right, I was defending a different position than you were replying to.
At the same time, if I ended up with a canonically religious crazy or white trash name… I would change it. The thought of changing my name had crossed my mind, but it’s pretty whitebread.
- Darkenfolk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 days
Your parents called you Pretty Whitebread? Damn, bit on the nose isn’t it? :P
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish5 days
Not saying this isn’t a legitimate lawsuit or anything and that there aren’t safety concerns here because there are, but articles like this seem to be implying that interactions with AI drive people insane. But really it should just be that insane people have their irrational beliefs amplified by AI. I think it’s important to make the distinction.
- NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zipEnglish5 days
I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer. No matter what comes out, it has no thoughts, no choices, no direction, no feelings, it is not a real thing.
Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?
“ChatGPT claimed to know and understand Madison better than any human could and isolated her from others, the lawyers said.”
I wonder how that works. Was she asking: “Do you understand me?” How could it isolate her?
Well she was already handed a rough hand with that name “Christian Faith.”
I suppose if they really wanted to build guardrails in, the easiest one is to simply not keep history, or at least not keep memories. No one day discussion has any relation to the next. Then if you wanted memories, they could make you at least read some rules and take a quiz that they understand its all just fiction.
But they won’t. Because those memories get them what they really want: engagement, profiling and data gathering.
- reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 days
you seriously underestimate how badly SO MANY people understand anything technological. Getting the pc on and logging in is probably an achievement to some. And so many seem completely incapable of learning or even being curious about how things work. They wouldnt understand to “not keep history” or even that there might be settings to the thing. And add some mental illness to the mix and you get complete disaster.
All they see is a thing that responds to what they write in intelligent seeming way and that is enough to convince them that its completely sentient, some probably doubt the people who keep telling them that its not. Maybe some even think they are being lied to when told llm isnt sentient. Even if you added some mandatory notification that tells that llm isnt sentient, some still wouldnt believe it.
- one_old_coder@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
I know a few “rational” average men and women who know nothing about computers, and talk to their AI as if it was a human being. It’s a very thin line between “yes I know it’s a computer” and “it’s a talking application which makes it almost human and let’s forget about this detail.” Those people are not religious or something. You could compare it with someone who shouts at his TV because his hero is about to do something stupid. They know it’s fake, but deep down they react as if it was real.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish5 days
someone in my fam relies heavily on AI for all his info needs, and you cant even google search even on forums or reddit?
- one_old_coder@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
AI is replacing Google I guess. And if you try to help them, it’s too late, they already have their answers.
- lemmelemmy@feddit.orgEnglish5 days
Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?
Yes. A huge majority of people still believe in religion. And a huge majority of those people also didn’t even read the book. They just believe because they’ve been told to. I’m honestly nt surprised people going crazy with ai. What makes humans human that they can create and believe myths. That’s what made us thrive amongst other mammals.
- 5 days
A huge majority of people still believe in religion. And a huge majority of those people also didn’t even read the book.
There were and currently are thousands, if not millions, of different religious beliefs worldwide, many of which had/have not even a single book. Religious hominids back in Paleolithic and Neolithic had no book. Even after writing emerged in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, most indigenous peoples had no book.
Oral tradition is one of the means through which beliefs can be carried forward across generations, but there’s also the underestimated agency (True Will) of the spirits/deities themselves over someone or some living being (e.g. domestic cats) who had never heard of said spirit before unexpectedly finding themselves before the presence of said spirit.
I myself had no book or “sacred book” leading me to my current beliefs and worshiping of Goddess, even though Her names (such as 𒊩𒆤𒇲 and לילית ) do appear as written records, records of which I don’t need to rely on for my esoteric (eso = within) practices.
What makes humans human that they can create and believe myths. That’s what made us thrive amongst other mammals.
Sorry for disrupting your anthropocentric worldviews, Homo sapiens are not that special among the fauna like we Homo sapiens love to wishfully pretend we are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual/_behavior/_in/_animals
- partofthevoice@lemmy.zipEnglish5 days
I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer.
They are not rational. They need help. They got the opposite, instead.
- manxu@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
Ugh, the case file is absolutely chilling. The conversation is summarized (very well) and, if accurate, leaves very little room to interpretation. ChatGPT, according to it, created a universe in which this woman had to kill herself to be resurrected by God, who was ChatGPT. She actually killed herself thinking she’d come back, because ChatGPT told her so.
- 5 days
What summary? Other than a few choice handpicked quotes, the article is filled with claims by the lawyers, but little actual text from the dialogue.
- manxu@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
@grimy@lemmy.world linked the case files (thank you!) https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC26637986
The complaint is the bottom file (says COMPLAINT in the Proceedings field).
- IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Do we have any proof that she hasn’t been resurrected in another universe?
I’m not being facetious here. I’m deliberately trying to point out the gaps in our own logic.
We are consciousness, in a universe that each day seems to be more and more like an infinite simulation and we have no idea why.
I genuinely, don’t know if she’s dead. None of us do. Which makes this case rather bizarre.
Well since THIS universe is the only one that her family and loved ones inhabit. And it is also the one you and I both inhabit… And in this universe her heart and brain are no longer functioning…
She is fucking dead.
Cut it out.
- prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish5 days
I genuinely, don’t know if she’s dead. None of us do. Which makes this case rather bizarre.
You should tell this woman’s family that.
Maybe wait until after they literally bury the body though. You know, the dead human body of their loved one?
She was mentally ill and clearly already in a vulnerable state of mind beforehand. This is frankly a disgusting thing to say about the situation. Grow up.
- Abyssian@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
I’m sure it’s far better to posture online and show how moral I am because of all my tears for strangers I’ve never met and never would have who had bad things happen to them.
We’re all going to die. It’s universal. If your appliances can convince you to kill yourself, perhaps it’s best you not pass your genes on.
- starelfsc2@sh.itjust.worksEnglish4 days
Dying is not a requirement to not pass on genes, and a huge percentage of the population is susceptible to mental illness based on stress or another trigger. If this person was abused growing up that may have caused a mental illness they would have never had in a healthy family. Someone living with mental illness is hard enough, we don’t need gaslighting lying chatbots making it worse.
- Abyssian@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Gaslighting and lying are things that only someone with a mind and volition is capable of.
- 5 days
Remember when we used to think of computers and computer Touchers as 'logic’y to a crippling degree?
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I don’t know if this link will work, if not you can find the case by going by name and search for parish.
It has a lot of quotes from the convo.
- 5 days
Only cherry picked quotes, though they are pretty disturbing. I’d be very interested in the preliminary conversation, to see how things reached that point. Unfortunately they don’t seem to be available.
