[Esophagus4]

The disclosure requirement is probably a decent thing (you have no idea how many people come into the ER and say, “But ChatGPT told me to do [dumb thing].”) But preventing it from answering at all is absurd.

Make responsible disclosure absolve AI providers of legal responsibility (not legal advice lol).

That way if users ever sue OpenAI for giving them bad advice, OpenAI can say “no way man, you read the disclosure!”

I’m usually in favor of giving people the best info they can and letting them make their own decisions.

This could just be like those terms of service things everyone clicks “agree” to and I’d be fine with that.

[terminalshort]

I am skeptical of this claim. What are some of the dumb things that people do on ChatGPTs advice that puts them in the ER?

[Esophagus4]

Talk to your doctor friends.

Edit: sorry, that was a rude way for me to respond. But this is pretty googleable, and I’m going off of war stories two doctor friends of mine have shared.

Eg https://nypost.com/2025/10/24/health/real-life-ways-bad-advi...

To explain, I reacted strongly because there’s a style of HN comment that is basically “source?” But it’s a trap, because they are trying to discredit and dismiss your point, not understand it.

You can provide the best sources for something that is simply fact, but it won’t change their mind - they will just find pedantic way to further discredit or dodge anything you put in front of them.

I once got into this pattern explaining to someone that, yes, stress actually does cause physical ailments and provided like 5 NIH papers out of the thousands that support that fact, but the commenter just tried to further discredit each study for meaningless and pedantic reasons.

So I didn’t want to go down that road again. If you were seeking to understand, I’m sorry for jumping down your throat. If you were seeking to discredit and be the contrarian… stop.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> Make responsible disclosure absolve AI providers of legal responsibility (not legal advice lol).

disclaimer: OSTENSIBLY

if the sole aim was to reduce AI provider culpability, then a disclaimer would meet that requirement.

humans famously suck at acting within rational self-interest; therefore, this isn't trying to protect AI providers of legal responsibility. it's trying to mitigate unwanted results from actions taken based on decisions informed by unverified LLM output.

[Esophagus4]

Makes sense.

But protecting people from themselves is hard to legislate :)