this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
144 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
88041 readers
2748 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AI companies cannot be allowed to hide behind "it wasn't me!" defences.
Ethics and companies rarely go together. The mindset is: win, whatever the cost.
There's a real nice doom scenario playing out right now; at least as long as capitalism's kept alive and well.
And yet watch as they do exactly that for the next several decades.
SHAGGY
Ha ha, I'm wishing I'd said that myself
Why should OpenAI be held responsible for this particular incident? Because their LLM recommended the user to contact a suicide hotline when he expressed his suicidal thoughts? Because it correctly answered his questions and confirmed that the safety of his shotgun was off? Don't get me wrong, I like having companies held accountable as much as the next guy, but why don't you ask the gun production companies to be held responsible as well? Hell, we might as well be asking for his parents to be held accountable for their offspring's actions.
Yes, LLM's can, with or without external manipulation, provide information about sensitive subjects, which can then be consumed by vulnerable individuals who may act in a harmful way. That individual would have acted and reached the same outcome not matter if the LLM would have existed or not, because there are multiple options to using an LMM to gather information.
What are the realistic expectations of OpenAI to implement to prevent these things, that doesn't automatically mean stricter restrictions to the user data privacy and further strengthen the control of citizens (thanks to the flourishing relationship between OpenAI and the American government)?
I thought it was interesting how the article said that if ChatGPT was a human it would have been charged with murder.
Obviously I don't think ChatGPT is a human but it does raise questions about the kind of laws regarding LLM and the companies behind them.
Like at what point do AI companies have a responsibility to step in in these scenarios?
They don’t. It’s not human.
Company is still ran by people though
One expectation could be to recognize that ai psychosis is a thing and cut people off if they're going down that road.
That could work. But who will define where the company should step in, at which times, and still maintain respect for the right to digital privacy? And in this case, since it was OpenAI specifically which is generally known as a corrupt company, would one trust the company to not use this as some kind of loophole for other stuff?
Right. The devil is in the details. But it is easy to imagine that any step in the right direction would be better.
LLM AI is just like a Google search 🤡
Such a thoughtful, elaborated response. And a emoji included as well, to really capture the feeling of being written by an adult.
Post clown content, get clown responses.
IMO the reply was exactly what your post deserved. Just because your post was long doesn't mean it was intelligent or even valid. You posted a bad take, and got justifiably called out. Take the L and learn from it, or are you not an adult either?
If your reason to be on an online forum is to discuss, disprove, or change the beliefs of an stranger online, a good idea is to actually try.
If you're hunting precious updoots with snarky one-line comments that are parroting the ideas of internet culture, then this is not the place for it.
You must be new here. Welcome to the Internet
Have to wonder - is there any way for OpenAI to win in the public's eye?
If it reports stuff like this, it's a privacy breach. If it doesn't, it's aiding and abetting.
If it provides counselling, it's culpable. If it doesn't, it's failing vulnerable people.
I'm no fan of OpenAI, but what's the actual win state here? Any rational actor in that position eventually concludes: shut it all down.
That was the point I was trying to make in my original comment. I don't think there is, and I don't think OpenAI even care at this point given their track record of bad PR. They are already in bed with the government, they can't really be touched until that changes first.
Oh, I wasn't headed in that direction, however true it ultimately may be. More commenting on the "no pleasing the masses" scenario they've gotten themselves into.
Though upon further considering, it may very well be they only need to do the bare minimum while they strive towards those ends you hint at.
You want to build a nanny state.