[johnfn]

Didn't we have a conversation a few days ago where a kid committed suicide while documenting it on ChatGPT and the clear consensus was that if OpenAI had been scanning user's conversations and reporting them to the police, this could have been averted, and this was a huge issue? But now when they go and do it, everyone says this is completely unacceptable? What exactly is OpenAI supposed to do, then?

[mjamesaustin]

Don't release a model that's so sycophantic it provides encouraging advise to suicidal users about how and where their body should be discovered after they kill themselves.

Instead, it should warn the user that their pattern of thinking indicates mental health issues and they need to search for health from a medical professional.

[nomel]

> need to search for health from a medical professional.

In all of the cases (that I'm aware of), these people were already diagnosed, and the family was aware of their mental illnesses. The awareness and agency you're asking for, from the mentally ill individual, would probably preclude their condition.

If someone is mentally ill, sometimes the only practical protection is to deem them unfit for access by the caregivers or the government (as we do with guns).

The alternative is to assume everyone is unfit, which has its own practical and ethical problems.

[fwip]

I think this might be an instance of the Goomba fallacy: https://englishinprogress.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ima...

[cherioo]

Last week the think of the children groups were out in force, and this week it’s the privacy and liberty groups. Internet opinion is not a monoculture.

What does bug me though is that it was politically incorrect for the privacy folks to come out last week and for the two groups to fight. I have no solution.

[miltonlost]

Frankly not exist in its current form