[lukev]

That would not help in the slightest, any more than a "surgeon general's warning" helps stop smokers.

The problem is calling it "AI" to start with. This (along with the chat format itself) primes users to think of it as an entity... something with care, volition, motive, goals, and intent. Although it can emulate these traits, it doesn't have them.

Chatting with a LLM is entering a one-person echo-chamber, a funhouse mirror that reflects back whatever semantic region your initial query put it. And the longer you chat, the deeper that rabbit hole goes.

[duskwuff]

> That would not help in the slightest, any more than a "surgeon general's warning" helps stop smokers.

Particularly given some documented instances where a user has asked the language model about similar warnings, and the model responded by downplaying the warnings, or telling the user to disregard them.

[threatofrain]

It's not a one-person echo-chamber though, it also carries with it the smell and essence of a large corpus of human works. That's why it's so useful to us, and that's why it carries so much authority.

[jvanderbot]

Well, hate to be that guy, but surgeons general warnings coincided with significant reduction in smoking. We've just reached the flattening of that curve. After decades of declines.

It's hard to believe that a prominent well - worded warning would do nothing but that's not to say it'll be effective for this.

[ianbicking]

The surgeon general warning came along with a large number of other measures to reduce smoking. If that warning had an effect, I would guess that effect was to prime the public for the other measures and generally to change consensus.

BUT, I think it's very likely that the surgeon general warning was closer to a signal that consensus had been achieved. That voice of authority didn't actually _tell_ anyone what to believe, but was a message that anyone could look around and use many sources to see that there was a consensus on the bad effects of smoking.

[Daviey]

It reminds me of when the UK Prime Minister sent a letter to all 30 milliom households during the first Covid lockdown.

Printing and postage cost was about £5.8 million. At the time, I thought it was a waste of taxpayers’ money. A letter wouldn’t change anyone’s behaviour, least of all not mine or anyone I knew.

But the economics told a different story. The average cost of treating a Covid patient in intensive care ran to tens of thousands of pounds. The UK Treasury values preventing a single death at around £2 million (their official Value of a Prevented Fatality). That means if the letter nudged just three people into behaviour that prevented their deaths, it would have paid for itself. Three deaths, out of 30 million households.

In reality, the effect was likely far larger. If only 0.1% of households (30,000 families) changed their behaviour even slightly, whether through better handwashing, reduced contact, or staying home when symptomatic, those small actions would multiply during an exponential outbreak. The result could easily be hundreds of lives saved and millions in healthcare costs avoided.

Seen in that light, £5.8 million wasn’t wasteful at all. It was one of the smarteer investments of the pandemic.

What I dismissed as wasteful and pointless, turned out to be a great example of how what appears to be a large upfront cost can deliver returns that massively outweigh the initial outlay.

I changed my view and admitted I was wrong.

[lukev]

Well if that's true, by all means.

But saying "This AI system may cause harm" reads to me as similar to saying "This delightful substance may cause harm."

The category error is more important.