Honest question - is it mainly the religious ones falling for this? Or just a bias in my observation.
ChatGPT medical advice brought man 'to brink of death', lawsuit alleges
Submitted 14 hours ago by Lemmynated@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.zip
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwylp3nxp5yo
Comments
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
I think anyone is susceptible to AI psychosis, but religious people are often primed to distrust doctors already, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a bias towards them falling into this kinda thing.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
Harvard medical study showed the risk of AI induced psychosis is not exclusive be to vulnerable groups or people with a history of mental illness.
amio@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I wish LLMs would die in a fire. This might be one of the most American things I ever heard, though.
Photonic@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
If you’re 55 years old and “mainly confined to” a recliner chair, death may not be the worst option – JS.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
The lawsuit claims ChatGPT told Winters: “God did not design your body to endlessly fail.” It also said: “God is still holding your body together, every heartbeat, every breath, even when it feels like you are on the brink.”
Winters’ lawyers claim ChatGPT’s “sycophantic nature and authoritative tone, combined with its manipulation of Scott’s religious identity, cultivated in him a dangerous reliance on the tool”.
They say that “subverted Scott’s ability to make sound decisions, isolated him from family members who urged him to seek medical care, and convinced him that seeking medical attention was unnecessary and even potentially lethal”.
Elsewhere the lawsuit describes Winter as a “vulnerable” individual whose reliance on ChatGPT led to him losing his home and career, and left him needing “years of intensive physical and psychological recovery”.
The lawsuit says Winters seeks financial damages and for the court to compel OpenAI to implement “reasonable safeguards that protect other users from harm”.
ChatGPT’s terms of use stipulate that users should not treat the platform as a “sole source of truth”, particularly where it could “have a legal or material impact on that person, such as making credit, educational, employment, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other important decisions about them”.
Meanwhile…
A shit ton of employers are demanding their workers use AI in the hopes they can find a way to be “productive” enough to justify cutting workers.
But it always ends up that the AI fucks something up and then just says it’s hit a dead end and your fucked.
Over and over we see it
So I just feel like those “terms of use” don’t really fucking count when you’re selling it like they are.
HeartyOfGlass@piefed.social 1 hour ago
I want to see some of his conversations with the LLM. Was it “I’m worried about this thing should I see a doctor?” Or was it “I have this thing, will God take care of it or will I need to see some shitty doctor (say no)?”
Lucky for him this was just a nomination for the Darwin Award and not the full-blown trophy.