“I’m your man for the job. Believe me, I know kids inside and out.”

This guy at the interview probably.

Yes, but taking away the LLM won’t solve anything imo. It’s hard to know if there are more deaths or if it’s just the media pushing it because of what it’s attached too, but I’m guessing someone that falls deep into their delusions because of an LLM would have found something else to do the same with. It’s the system (both the government and probably her immediate support system) that’s letting her down.

It’s kind of muddy, especially when it comes to kids. This case seems like clear cut religion cult delusions though. Hard to pretend the LLM had more impact than her upbringing, and no one talks about restricting religion so it just comes off as another anti-ai token gesture.

It’s like the case of the kid with Daenerys. Everyone wants to talk about the GoT bot but nobody wants to talk about the bullying, the parents who knew about it and let him grow reclusive anyways, or the same parents who left a gun in easy reach.

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.

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.

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?

I find it ridiculous that they are both suing. One of them probably got a better life out of switch.

https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC26637986&SessionID=A5DB5055C8BACE2E6FF9CCEC8B6ACD64B949B145

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.

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.

It’s all the same type of software that would be used and it would sometimes break randomly for no clear reason no matter the use case. Why would they tackle detection differently between being on the highway, on a residential street or on a street in front of a house? The same edge cases would apply to each (like billboards or faulty GPS signal for example).

All the current lawsuits kind of suck because its all copyright juggernaut vs big AI companies. It feels mostly lose lose for us but only one of the two outcomes kneecaps open source and community driven options.

Another frustrating bit is that it’s win win for big AI. Even if they lose, it just means a cheap fine while getting a massive moat because of the new cost of entry.

Fair points but the current lawsuits arent there to solve any of them. The lawsuit against Udio essentially gave ownership of the app to UMG and Warner. No artists were payed. The app still exists, except you have to pay to download the song and they put extra copyrights on every song generated now.

It’s insanely transparent imo, they want a monopoly on generated music as well as the regular stuff. I wish artists had a chance.

Even worst is that UMG will probably start pushing AI music once the dust settles because there’s more profit in it, especially if they own it the moment it’s made and can dictate the terms with a simple ToS.

They took so long to start that all the hype is gone. I’ve got anti-hype, I fully expect to be disappointed. It’s going to suck.

You are arguing semantics and aren’t even right about it. A drawback can be minor or major. We are in agreement but your being silly about the words I use even though they are completely valid. You might want a synonym that’s harsher but that doesn’t make the use of the word wrong.

I’m basically saying it’s a problem and you are going “no fool, it’s a really really big problem”, like no shit, that’s what I said. I even added the word clear to show that’s it’s not a small drawback but a major one.

If the car can’t be trusted to know if it’s on the highway or a residential street, it can’t be trusted to know if it’s on the highway or on a residential street in front of a house.

I don’t know what system would work for one but not the other.

A massive safety hazard is a clear drawback…

We must band together and protect the record companies! All music generation must go through Universal and Warner’s proprietary app. Death to training without paying the stockholders, death to open-source.

All hail censorship, all hail Google.

The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house. Hence why I said most don’t want that. Some clear drawbacks.

That being said, putting a max speed that is only a bit above highway speed is an easy win imo.

deleted by creator

With how all cars are connected these days, we could easily throttle them using GPS data depending on the road you’re on. I don’t really get why cars can even go so fast in general, max should be twenty over the highway limit.

Nobody really wants that though I’m guessing.

the driver of a Tesla who crashed into a house in June had pressed the accelerator pedal to 100%, overriding the company’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software.

Yes the naming convention is dumb but it wasn’t at fault here.