Record numbers of people are turning to AI chatbots for therapy, reports Anthony Cuthbertson. But recent incidents have uncovered some deeply worrying blindspots of a technology out of control
It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.
Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.
So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?
I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.
If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷♂️
Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.
Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.
Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.
I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.
But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.
Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.
I feel the guardrails are in place, and that they will be continuously improved. If a person finds a situation where an AI suggests they kill themselves without being prompted, say, during a brainstorm about strawberry cake consistency—if you were dead you wouldn’t have this problem—would be… concerning.
It’s not about banning or refusing AI tools, it’s about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.
Your argument is the equivalent of “guns don’t kill people” or blaming drivers for Tesla’s so-called “full self-driving” errors leading to accidents, because “full self-driving” switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.
So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?
I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.
If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷♂️
Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There’s nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.
Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there’s probably government regulation needed, as it’s clear by now that the companies won’t regulate themselves.
Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.
I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.
But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.
Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won’t do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.
I feel the guardrails are in place, and that they will be continuously improved. If a person finds a situation where an AI suggests they kill themselves without being prompted, say, during a brainstorm about strawberry cake consistency—if you were dead you wouldn’t have this problem—would be… concerning.