Very fair. Thank you!

I agree with the part about unintended use, yes an LLM is not and should never act as a therapist. However, concerning your example with search engines, they will catch the suicide keyword and put help sources before any search result. Google does it, DDG also. I believe ChatGPT will start with such resources also on the first mention, but as OpenAI themselves say, the safety features degrade with the length of the conversation.

About this specific case, I need to find out more, but other comments on this thread say that not only the kid was in therapy, suggesting that the parents were not passive about it, but also that ChatGPT actually encouraged the kid to hide what he was going through. Considering what I was able to hide from my parents when I was a teenager, without such a tool available, I can only imagine how much harder it would be to notice the depth of what this kid was going through.

In the end I strongly believe that the company should put much stronger safety features, and if they are unable to do so correctly, then my belief is that the product should just not be available to the public. People will misuse tools, especially a tool touted as AI when it is actually a glorified autocomplete.

(Yes, I know that AI is a much larger term that also encompasses LLMs, but the actual limitations of LLMs are not well enough known by the public, and not communicated enough by the companies to the end users)

I’m honestly at a loss here, I didn’t intend to argue in bad faith, so I don’t see how I moved any goal post

Can’t argue there…

That seems way more like an argument against LLMs in general, don’t you think? If you cannot make it so it doesn’t encourage you to suicide without ruining other uses, maybe it wasn’t ready for general use?

I get the feeling that you’re missing one very important point about GenAI: it does not, and cannot (by design) know right from wrong. The only thing it knows is what word is statistically the most likely to appear after the previous one.

Are you telling me that I should have diluted some bullet material, instead of trying to start by shooting myself with a small caliber and work up my immunity from that? All this work, wasted!

To add to your point, it used to be that the village idiot was just that, known for it, and shamed or shunned. Now that they can connect to other village idiots, they can find a community of like minded idiots that reinforces their beliefs.

we don’t need so many MBAs anymore

Fixed it for you ;)

I’ll be the first to admit that I fell for his (initially) near perfect PR that crafted the industry genius image he’s still coasting on to this day. Of course that took a nosedive when he started calling a rescuer “pedo” for pointing out the stupidity of his rescue submarine idea. But it wasn’t until he started talking about IT that I finally started to understand he wasn’t an average CEO manipulating public opinion to his advantage, but an absolute moron who actually never had any idea of what he was talking about. Yes the dude is that stupid, but good PR is actually hard to completely take down.

And RGB LEDs, gotta remember those!

Didn’t they end up adding stealth and/or hacking options for dealing with the bosses with a later patch? Director’s cut maybe?

By design? Man I need me some of that tinfoil…

What @RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works was talking about was awareness, and you said no then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. It does raise awareness, as shown by the fact that we are talking about it.

Oh that makes sense, thanks.

Hum, why does the removal of numbers matter? Is it to do with impersonating other users?

So yeah, as you said if you dual boot your non gaming OS will stay untouched, outside of the anti-cheat’s influence, so you don’t risk much this way. I’d imagine that you would still use your credit card on your gaming OS to buy games, so that particular information stays at risk.

Yes, of course they will be under some scrutiny, but I’d prefer if they just didn’t do it. Your use case is very far from applying to the majority of users who simply run Windows for everything they do.

And there’s still the danger of vulnerabilities in the anti-cheat. For exemple, last year, this happened. It’s not exactly the same as the anti-cheat but the tech is close enough. The TL;DR is that CrowdStrike has a platform that runs at kernel level, and an update to the tool had a bug which prevented Windows from booting, instead crashing to a BSOD. Now, CrowdStrike is a security company, and a generally well regarded one at that. It doesn’t prevent them from making mistakes. So how can you trust that anti-cheat to be without vulnerability? You simply cannot.

Who’s “this guy” that says privacy is a “non-issue”? A kernel level anti-cheat has basically any possible permission on your computer. Even if you trust the game dev or publisher to not do anything other than trying to catch cheaters (you shouldn’t), you are not safe from a vulnerability in said anti-cheat that could be exploited by malicious actors.

Also, kernel level anti-cheat is far from being a silver bullet. You can use an hypervisor, that runs even higher in the chain than the anti-cheat. There are DMA cards that allow you to read game memory from outside your system. You can use a secondary computer, with a capture card, that will use computer vision to cheat.

Those options are harder to implement, but far from impossible, and are already being sold.

All of this to say, as others have said, that the only true way to fight cheating is by implementing the anti-cheat server side.

Probably why they talked about looking at a stack trace, you’ll see immediately that you made a typo in a variable’s name or language keyword when compiling or executing.

Yes! Will people stop with their sloppy criticisms?