If a HumanA pushed and convinced HumanB to kill themselves, then HumanA caused it. IMO they murdered them. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t pull the trigger. I don’t care what the legal definitions say.
If a chatbot did the same thing, it’s no different. Except in this case, it’s a team of developers behind it that did so, that allowed it to do so. Character.ai has blood on their hands, should be completely dismantled, and every single person at that company tried for manslaughter.
Except character.ai didn’t explicitly push or convince him to commit suicide. When he explicitly mentioned suicide, it made efforts to dissuade him and showed concern. When it supposedly encouraged him, it was in the context of a roleplay in which it said “please do” in response to him “coming home,” which GPT3.5 doesn’t have the context or reasoning abilities to recognize as a euphemism for suicide when the character it’s roleplaying is dead and the user alive
Regardless, it’s a tool designed for roleplay. It doesn’t work if it breaks character
Hmmm
A very poor Lemmy article headline. The linked article says “alleged” and clearly there were multiple factors involved.
The title is straight from the article
That is odd. It’s not what I see:
Could be different headlines for different regions?
Or they changed the headline and due to caches CDNs or other reasons you didn’t get the newer one.
archive.today has your original headline cached.
Thanks for posting. While it’s a needlessly provocative headline, if that’s what the article headline was, then that is what the Lemmy one should be.
They most likely changed the headline because the original headline was so bad.
If people are still seeing old headline, it’s probably cached. Try a hard refresh or a different browser or a private browser, etc.
If a HumanA pushed and convinced HumanB to kill themselves, then HumanA caused it. IMO they murdered them. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t pull the trigger. I don’t care what the legal definitions say.
If a chatbot did the same thing, it’s no different. Except in this case, it’s a team of developers behind it that did so, that allowed it to do so. Character.ai has blood on their hands, should be completely dismantled, and every single person at that company tried for manslaughter.
Except character.ai didn’t explicitly push or convince him to commit suicide. When he explicitly mentioned suicide, it made efforts to dissuade him and showed concern. When it supposedly encouraged him, it was in the context of a roleplay in which it said “please do” in response to him “coming home,” which GPT3.5 doesn’t have the context or reasoning abilities to recognize as a euphemism for suicide when the character it’s roleplaying is dead and the user alive
Regardless, it’s a tool designed for roleplay. It doesn’t work if it breaks character
Your comment might cause me to do something. You’re responsible. I don’t care what the legal definitions say.
That will show that pesky receptionist