At some point they have to say "if we can't make this safe we can't do it at all". LLMs are great for some things, but if they will do this type of thing even once then they are not worth the gains and should be shutdown.

▲

roenxi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No they don't, if we're going to start saying that we can't use any technology. If someone is mentally ill to the point where they are on the verge of suicide nothing is safe.

If they're going to curtail LLMs there'd need to be some actual evidence and even then it would be hard to justify winding them back given the incredible upsides LLMs offer. It'd probably end up like cars where there is a certain number of deaths that just need to be tolerated.

▲

solid_fuel 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> If someone is mentally ill to the point where they are on the verge of suicide nothing is safe.

This is a perspective born only from ignorance. Life can wear down anyone, even the strong. I find there may come a time in anyone's life where they are on the edge, staring into an abyss.

At the same time - and this is important - suicidality can pass with time and depression can be treated. Being suicidal is not a death sentence and it just isn't true that "nothing is safe". The important thing is making sure there's no bot "helpfully" waiting to push someone over the cliff or confirm their worst illusions at the worst possible time.

▲

fenykep an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you imagine what driving cars would look like if they would be only (self-)regulated by VC-backed startups like we see so far with this new technology? Would there be seatbelts, speedbumps, brake signals, licenses or speed limits?

This obviously isn't a binary question. Sure we cars have benefits but we don't let anyone ducktape a V8 to a lawnmower, paint flames over it and sell it to kids promising godlike capabilities without annoying "safety features".

Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people, especially as this technology so far only benefits a handful of people economically. I would like to see the evidence (of benefits to the greater society that I see being harmed now) before we unleash this thing freely and not the other way around.

▲

anomaly_ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people

This is a absurd standard. Humans wouldn't be able to use power stations, cars, knives, or fire! Everything has inherent risk and we shouldn't limit human progress because tiny fractions of the population have issues.

	▲	TheOtherHobbes 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not an absurd standard at all. Risks are quantifiable, and not binary. But the absurdity is that there is a long and tragic history of using economic benefits as an excuse for products and services that cause extreme and widespread harm - not just emotional and physical, but also economic. We are far too tolerant of this. The issue isn't risk in some abstract sense, it's the enthusiastic promotion of death, war, sickness, and poverty for "rational" economic reasons.

▲

Imustaskforhelp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Fun fact but the creator of the seat-belt actually gave his patent for free

> This is Nils Bohlin, an engineer at Volvo.[0] He invented the three-point seat belt in 1959. Rather than profit from the invention, Volvo opened up the patent for other manufactorers to use for no cost, saying "it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from"

[0]: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at...

I have so much respect for the guy.

▲

Bratmon 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bridges tend to be highly associated with suicides. Should we ban bridges too?

▲

Hizonner 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Suppose they made things worse once and made things better twice?

"Even once" is not a way to think about anything, ever.