Or they've determined that micromanaging it is circuitous and increases their dependence on tech giants, so it's a bad deal given that they also need to know the work well enough to verify it anyway.
It's not really important whether it's a one-off thing with this one guy, he's not relevant in the big picture. To the extent that he deindividualizes his labor he's just one more fungible operator of AI anyway.
People are making a bigger deal about it than this one article or site warrants because of ongoing discourse about whether LLM tech will regularly and inevitably lead to these mistakes. We're all starting to get sick of hearing about it, but this keeps happening.
You're asking what's the alternative to this? A chance for real connection and healing that isn't vulnerable to the whim of a tech giant and its compulsion for profit. A chance at counsel that isn't vulnerable to a random number generator steering them one day towards self harm.
> A chance for real connection and healing that isn't vulnerable to the whim of a tech giant and its compulsion for profit.
That "chance" had years to materialize that did not. Perhaps the worst thing that happened here was that the chatbot did not steer her to resilient human connection when she was in a self-reported better state after the help of the chatbot
How many people off themselves because they can't seem to connect with anyone, and they don't feel like anyone really cares (and they might not be wrong). I don't think the expectation that these people would just magically make friends and build connections because AI wasn't available is realistic.
If the other option is suicide, a qualified therapist and other mental health resources are the right answer, not a chatbot.
Frankly I'm not sure an LLM is even better than nothing. Note the user in that thread whose "partner" told them to get a therapist because they were delusional and instead retreated to Grok.
Therapists are expensive, a lot of them are bad, and just getting therapy set up can be a pain in the ass with waiting lists and a bunch of run around. If you're so set on therapy as the answer I suggest volunteering to help set up and pay for therapists for depressed people, because it's not a great solution, or shitty chatbots wouldn't be killing it.
That's great, will you also add the category field to the text file in the repo? These projects are often heavy on tech blogs and I'd like to filter those out.
"Agenda" has become code for "ideas I don't agree with", used by people who mistakenly believe it (politics) can be compartmentalized from other everyday topics and only trotted out at election time.
I disagree. Agendas are real things. Just because they have one, doesn't mean it is inherently bad or even a disagreeable position... but some people just don't like to be "sold to", regardless of the topic.
I'm afraid both are true. And they often go hand in hand. Often, someone calling out an agenda is doing so to sell theirs. (See also "ideology", which is often treated as a synonym.)
For some people perhaps. For me personally, I find some sites purposefully interject their 'agenda', either left or right into their journalism to the detriment of the piece. You're not going to a get a truely subjective view on things anywhere but some places are skewed to the point that you can't tell if vital information is being witheld or under reported.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.
reply