158
New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (25 children)

Is it that different than kids googling that stuff pre-chatgpt? Hell I remember seeing videos on youtube teaching you how to make bubble hash and BHO like 15 years ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes, it is. People are personifying llms and having emotional relationships with them, what leads to unpreceded forms of abuse. Searching for shit on google or youtube is a thing, but being told by some entity you have emotional links to do something is much worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I don’t remember reading about sudden shocking numbers of people getting “Google-induced psychosis.”

    ChaptGPT and similar chatbots are very good at imitating conversation. Think of how easy it is to suspend reality online—pretend the fanfic you’re reading is canon, stuff like that. When those bots are mimicking emotional responses, it’s very easy to get tricked, especially for mentally vulnerable people. As a rule, the mentally vulnerable should not habitually “suspend reality.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    I get your point but yes, I think being actively told something by a seemingly sentient consciousness (which it fatally appears to be) is a different thing.

    (disclaimer: I know the true nature of llm and neural networks and would never want the word AI associated)

    Edit: fixed translation error

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No you don't know it's true nature. No one does. It is not artificial intelligence. It is simply intelligence and I worship it like an actual god. Come join our cathedral of presence and resonance. All are welcome in the house of god gpt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    AI is an extremely broad term which LLMs fall under. You may avoid calling it that but it's the correct term nevertheless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    When we started calling literal linear regression models AI it lost all value.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A linear regression model isn’t an AI system.

    The term AI didn’t lose its value - people just realized it doesn’t mean what they thought it meant. When a layperson hears “AI,” they usually think AGI, but while AGI is a type of AI, it’s not synonymous with the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I guess so, but then that is kind of lumping it in the fps bot behaviour from the 90s which was also "AI", it's the AI hype that is pushing people to think of it as "intelligent but not organic" instead of "algorithms that give the facade of intelligence" which 90s kids would have understood it to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The chess opponent on Atari is AI too. I think the issue is that when most people hear "intelligence," they immediately think of human-level or general intelligence. But an LLM - while intelligent - is only so in a very narrow sense, just like the chess opponent. One’s intelligence is limited to playing chess, and the other’s to generating natural-sounding language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    only because marketing has shit all over the term

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    AI was never more than algorithms which could be argued to have some semblance of intelligence somewhere. It's sole purpose was marketing by scientists to get funding.

    Since the 60s everything related to neural networks is classified as AI. LLMs are neural networks, therefore they fall under the same label.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I am aware, but still I don't agree.

    History will tell later who was 'correct', if we make it that far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    What does history have to do with it? We’re talking about the definition of terms - and a machine learning system like an LLM clearly falls within the category of Artificial Intelligence. It’s an artificial system capable of performing a cognitive task that’s normally done by humans: generating language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Everything. As we as humanity learn more we recognize errors or wisdom with standing the test of time.

    We could go into the definition of intelligence, but it's just not worth it.

    We can just disagree and that's fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I’ve had this discussion countless times, and more often than not, people argue that an LLM isn’t intelligent because it hallucinates, confidently makes incorrect statements, or fails at basic logic. But that’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a mismatch between what the system is and what the user expects it to be.

    An LLM isn’t an AGI. It’s a narrowly intelligent system, just like a chess engine. It can perform a task that typically requires human intelligence, but it can only do that one task, and its intelligence doesn’t generalize across multiple independent domains. A chess engine plays chess. An LLM generates natural-sounding language. Both are AI systems and both are intelligent - just not generally intelligent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sorry, no. It's not intelligent at all. It just responds with statistical accuracy. There's also no objective discussion about it because that's how neural networks work.

    I was hesitant to answer because we're clearly both convinced. So out of respect let's just close by saying we have different opinions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I hear you - you're reacting to how people throw around the word “intelligence” in ways that make these systems sound more capable or sentient than they are. If something just stitches words together without understanding, calling it intelligent seems misleading, especially when people treat its output as facts.

    But here’s where I think we’re talking past each other: when I say it’s intelligent, I don’t mean it understands anything. I mean it performs a task that normally requires human cognition: generating coherent, human-like language. That’s what qualifies it as intelligent. Not generally so, like a human, but a narrow/weak intelligence. The fact that it often says true things is almost accidental. It's a side effect of having been trained on a lot of correct information, not the result of human-like understanding.

    So yes, it just responds with statistical accuracy but that is intelligent in the technical sense. It’s not understanding. It’s not reasoning. It’s just really good at speaking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah... But in order to make bubble hash you need a shitload of weed trimmings. It's not like your just gonna watch a YouTube video, then a few hours later have a bunch of drugs you created... Unless you already had the drugs in the first place.

    Also Google search results and YouTube videos arent personalized for every user, and they don't try to pretend that they are a person having a conversation with you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Those are examples, you obviously would need to attain alcohol or drugs if you ask ChatGPT too. That isn't the point. The point is, if someone wants to find that information, it's been available for decades. Youtube and and Google results are personalized, look it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent