Look mate, all i am saying is that cutting edge technology shouldnt be used for critical areas until it is proven safe, i really am not invested enough in the cenversation to continue this thread, i support the descision being made to restrict LLM use for these areas at this point in time.
LLMs have been linked to mental health impacts, specifically demonstrably in suicide cases (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots) and i do believe in a lot of these cases the LLMs caused greater harm than would have been presented without the LLM interference, and definitely less harm than if these people saw a human professional to talk about their issues rather than a program. Yes there is a cost of seeing a health professional but this is not a case of ‘somethings better than nothing’.
I do think that helps clear it up for me and helps me understand the disconnect we’re having. If you’re done don’t let this pressure you into responding, but I’m responding for the sake of trying to resolve the difference in perspective.
We agree that there are real harms from this technology. We agree that human professionals are, on average, significantly better especially within the context of healthcare.
We disagree on what “safe” means. I am coming from the perspective that there is no such thing. There will always be side effects irregardless of the domain, technology, intervention, etc. and so the question is does it do more harm than good?
I do not see a single instance among that list, or others, that isn’t just a blatant failure of existing healthcare and social systems. Without ascribing supernatural social powers to this technology I fail to see how the LLM usage is anything more than a symptom of those institutional failures.
Legislating away access will do nothing more than give the monopoly power to the same institutions responsible for the initial failure and the initial conditions that led to that point while providing them with a scapegoat.
Look mate, all i am saying is that cutting edge technology shouldnt be used for critical areas until it is proven safe, i really am not invested enough in the cenversation to continue this thread, i support the descision being made to restrict LLM use for these areas at this point in time.
LLMs have been linked to mental health impacts, specifically demonstrably in suicide cases (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots) and i do believe in a lot of these cases the LLMs caused greater harm than would have been presented without the LLM interference, and definitely less harm than if these people saw a human professional to talk about their issues rather than a program. Yes there is a cost of seeing a health professional but this is not a case of ‘somethings better than nothing’.
I do think that helps clear it up for me and helps me understand the disconnect we’re having. If you’re done don’t let this pressure you into responding, but I’m responding for the sake of trying to resolve the difference in perspective.
We agree that there are real harms from this technology. We agree that human professionals are, on average, significantly better especially within the context of healthcare.
We disagree on what “safe” means. I am coming from the perspective that there is no such thing. There will always be side effects irregardless of the domain, technology, intervention, etc. and so the question is does it do more harm than good?
I do not see a single instance among that list, or others, that isn’t just a blatant failure of existing healthcare and social systems. Without ascribing supernatural social powers to this technology I fail to see how the LLM usage is anything more than a symptom of those institutional failures.
Legislating away access will do nothing more than give the monopoly power to the same institutions responsible for the initial failure and the initial conditions that led to that point while providing them with a scapegoat.