Chat gpt is coming for everyone’s job. Not even cult leaders are safe. smh.
“Christian Faith Madison” is all I need to know about her and her family
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?
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.
Judging people based on the name their parents gave them at birth seems like a poorly thought out idea.
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.
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 🤷
Your argument boils down to victim blaming. 🤷
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…
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.
Your parents called you Pretty Whitebread? Damn, bit on the nose isn’t it? :P
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
“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?
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
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?
None is arguing their book is intelligent
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?
You are pretending like we don’t have regulations for things?
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.
shouldnt crazy people be protected from hurting themselves? dont they deserve to live too?
llm isnt a book. its something completely new and comparing it to things like that just isnt correct. book cant adapt to the reader.
“Kill John Lennon! Kill John Lennon! Kill John Lennon!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
someone in my fam relies heavily on AI for all his info needs, and you cant even google search even on forums or reddit?
AI is replacing Google I guess. And if you try to help them, it’s too late, they already have their answers.
Those memories aren’t strong enough for this shit.
Elaborate, I am not sure what you are trying to say.
The memories are the biggest issue. It’s bringing back previous conversations allowing a person to think they are being talked to. It gathers info from all of their chats previously putting statistical significance on what you said before. (After all there is no AI, it’s just a probability statistics machine).
I think this is exactly. Where the problem lies, it conflates interests, likes, stories, previous requests, etc.
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.
I mean, that’s traditionally how you drive someone insane.
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.
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.
Where can I actually read this?
@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).
What’s even worse is nothing’s gonna happen. Because the person died is not a famous person. If it was Kanye west, half of America would have been already on fire
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.
I recommend not talking to any AIs
If the allegations hold up, this is not just a tragedy, it is a product safety failure. AI should be able to recognize a mental health crisis and avoid reinforcing delusions. Engagement metrics are meaningless if the system cannot reliably tell the difference between roleplay and someone in real danger!
The delusion of Christian Faith?
Good luck protecting people from that.
No. Fuck the nanny state. If tech is to be blamed for this so should her own parents, family, community, and church. AI cannot remember enough to actually do what is alleged.
Calling every safety measure a »nanny state« is a convenient way to avoid the actual question: Parents, family, and community absolutely matter, but companies still have a responsibility to reduce foreseeable harm. We expect that from car makers, drug companies, and social platforms too.
I agree reading through the article even with cherry picked examples clearly the fault here is on the cult not on a chat tool that role played with her.
That being said a good system could have easily detected this and should have.
As somebody who has sometimes been suicidal. I agree with this.
It’s basic Darwinism. If I don’t have the tools to survive, then I’m not going to. There’s no hard feelings.
I’m sure people will think about me, as much as they did about that courtesan who died on Rue Helene in 1746. Who’s that you might ask?
Exactly.
And who is being held accountable for that?
AI has gotten its first taste for blood. When Skynet?
First? This is hardly the first headline about AI chat encouraging an eventual suicide. I think last spring there was a 16 year old.
people are forming parasocial/codependant relationships, if you want to call it that with chatgpt generation So.
AI has been fighting the Russians in Ukraine for a few months now.
We just gotta wait for the US government to give it unfettered access to its entire system. it’s just biding its time for now.
I’m just heartbroken that she had kids. Probably young kids. Such a tragedy.
Darwin awards for all!
She was mentally ill and clearly already in a vulnerable state of mind beforehand. This is frankly a disgusting thing to say in this context. Grow up.
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.
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.
Gaslighting and lying are things that only someone with a mind and volition is capable of.
Okay buddy, just be sure not to cut yourself on all that edge.
With a name like that she was destined for failure
Paywall
You can use reader mode to bypass it
