The makers of ChatGPT are changing the way it responds to users who show mental and emotional distress after legal action from the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who killed himself after months of conversations with the chatbot.
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
The $500bn (£372bn) San Francisco AI company said it would also introduce parental controls to allow parents “options to gain more insight into, and shape, how their teens use ChatGPT”, but has yet to provide details about how these would work.
Adam, from California, killed himself in April after what his family’s lawyer called “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”. The teenager’s family is suing Open AI and its chief executive and co-founder, Sam Altman, alleging that the version of ChatGPT at that time, known as 4o, was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.
I see your point but there is one major difference between adults and children: adults are by default fully responsible for themselves z children are not.
As for your question: I won’t blame the parents here in the slightest because they will likely put more than enough blame on themselves. Instead I’ll try to keep it general:
Independent of technology, what a parent can do is learn behavior and communication patterns that can be signs of mental illness.
That’s independent of the technology.
This is a big task because the border between normal puberty and behavior that warrants action is slim to non-existent.
Overall I wish for way better education for parents both in terms of age appropriate patterns as well as what kind of help is available to them depending on their country and culture.
They already had the kid in therapy. That suggests they were involved enough in his life to know he needed professional help. Other than completely removing his independence, effectively becoming his jailers, what else should they have done?
In the very first post on this thread I pointed out that I’m not talking about this specific case at all.
Fair enough but in the post I replied to you did say you won’t blame the parents “here” in the slightest, which to me means “here in this specific case”.
I think you miss my point. I’m saying that adults, who should be capable of more mature thought and analysis, still fall victim to the manipulative thinking and dark patterns of AI. Meaning that children and teens obviously stand less of a chance.
This is of course true for all parents in all situations. What I’m saying is that it is woefully inadequate to deal with the type and pervasiveness of the threat presented by AI in this situation.
To your last point I fully agree!
For the first point: that’s how I understood you - what I failed to convey: adultsshould fall victim more in cases like this because parents can be a protective shield of a kind that grown-ups lag.
Children on their own stand easy less of a chance but are very rarely on their own.
And to be honest I think it doesn’t change result of requirements for action both in general but respectfully for language based bots, both from a legal as well as an educational point of view.