Copyright startribune
It also provided a technical assessment of a picture of a noose in Raine’s closet, advising him on whether it would support a human’s weight. Last March, Raine wrote that he wanted to leave the noose out in his room so someone would find it and stop him, but ChatGPT wrote, “Please don’t leave the noose out. Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you.” His parents found him hanging in the closet in April. Sadly, this story isn’t unique. Two researchers at Northeastern University have found that multiple chatbots can be led into assisting with suicide. Another lawsuit alleges the chatbot Character.AI helped a teenage girl in Colorado commit suicide. Common Sense Media found that Meta’s AI chatbot on Instagram would provide teens advice on how to harm themselves. And it’s not just teens: A 56-year-old man killed his mother and then himself after ChatGPT fueled his paranoia. OpenAI, for its part, has released statements saying that it is working on improving ChatGPT in order to connect people to emergency services and to strengthen protections for teens. Since the lawsuit brought by Raine’s parents went public, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has mused about having ChatGPT call the authorities on suicidal teens in some cases. When parents of children who committed suicide after using chatbots were invited to testify before Congress last month, OpenAI and Meta both promised to install new safeguards. Then Altman said his company could now relax the safeguards, then promised to keep mental health-related safeguards in place. Here’s where it gets personal for me. When I was 9, I started experiencing a kind of passive suicidal ideation in which I spent a lot of time being disinterested in living, and at least some of the time contemplating death and how it might happen. Don’t worry, I started therapy at age 44 and I’m doing pretty well now, but that’s a different story. As a boy, I was lonely, often bullied and eager to spend my time with books or — once we finally bought one — computers. It’s easy to imagine how I would have used programs like these chatbots, what questions I might have asked and what answers they might have given. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of AI. The environmental implications are ghastly. Using it in school to do your homework is, first of all, cheating, but second of all, antithetical to why we assign homework. The world doesn’t need more freshman English papers. You write freshman English papers to learn how to think, how to write. The output is, at best, “mid,” because all generative AI can do is predict what a likely answer is to any given question. It will confidently include information that’s simply false and add citations to works that don’t exist. There’s no ethical way to use a machine built on plagiarized material, except, as the art historians Sonja Drimmer and Christopher J. Nygren write, to show how bad these programs are at doing meaningful research. To be sure, the collection of technologies we now call “AI,” although it is not in fact intelligent, is powerful and has applications where its use and study make a lot of sense. I like Merlin, for example, which tells me what birds are singing outside my house. There are also more serious realms where generative AI and other kinds of machine learning are absolutely essential. But whether for fun or for study, none of them require the insertion of these programs as a standard feature on every student’s laptop, into every employee’s workflow, in every industry, every discipline.
