301
ChatGPT Convinced Alabama Woman Her Soul Was Within Its System As She Ended Her Life, Lawsuit Claims (www.ndtv.com)
submitted 1 month ago* by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT destroyed the mental stability of Christian Faith Madison, a 29-year-old Alabama resident.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

This is artificial selection.

Flooding societies with alcohol results in the people with more tolerance to alcohol surviving, that's not natural either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I've seen this perspective a few times, feels wooly to me.

    What definition of natural are you thinking of here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    OK a couple of other more blatant examples to think about.

    Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?

    Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?

    The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.

    Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago*

    Well, it seems people are upset that I wasnt receptive to a non sequitur and it seems like I won't be getting an actual answer to my question.

    Doesn't mean I have to be rude and perpetuate that behaviour so here is my answer.

    Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?

    Yes

    Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?

    Also yes

    If you didn't answer my question because you didn't understand why I was asking I'll explain.

    Please note, your question was not about correctness or morality it was natural vs artificial, if you want to ask about morals and ethics at least mention the words in the question.

    We are part of nature so the things we do are also natural, despite our cognitive differences from other species I think that to consider ourselves somehow outside the bounds of nature is the height of arrogance.

    The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.

    Agreed, another in a long line of attempts to control the general populace by taking something we already use and monopolising control to sell it back to us (as long as we do as we're told)

    Knowledge in this case.

    Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.

    I think this might be a general point and not aimed at me specifically, but I'll answer it just in case.

    I'm not trying to use nature to excuse atrocities, as part of our natural evolution we've constructed these concepts as tools for our societies, so to use "being natural" as a way to somehow divorce ourselves from them is a nonsensical argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    As interesting as that may be, none of that is an answer to my question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Your questions are all dumb

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What definition of dumb are you thinking of here? Seems wooly to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    If I left a gun in the middle of the room with a bunch of kids thats natural selection too. I shouldnt be held responsible for willfully ignoring any saftey precautions. I shoulsnt even be held responsible for hyping up the kids before hand and telling them how in the future everyones going to have guns and its going to make the world a better place because they're so safe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Look a grow person is responsible and should be able to think for themselves. If a product tells you to go jump of a bridge i think we can agree, that we all would naturally question this. But if your dumb and already fell for stupid believes, maybe that's how it goes. Natural selection as in the smarter animal doesn't jump when called to, since it has a sense of self preservation. This person already had a learned stupidity of blind belief taught by her society so the fault and responsibility lies with them as well.

    And yes ofc the ai should absolutely not do this kind of thing, but who knows what she prompted before it got to that, it had to be some weird shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I think there's a misunderstanding, I was asking about the distinction being drawn between natural and artificial.

    Specifically in the comment to which I was replying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    As far as I know, there is no artificial selection in an evolutionary sense other than maybe selective breeding and genetic modifications etc. But natural selection refers ofc to darwin theory of evolution. So i would call it artificial, if there is a clear intent behind it, by someone, for example tge ai being designed to drive all believers to kill themselfs. But since this is a random occurance that was not intentional i don't think it categorizes as artificial selection.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Natural selection means "died before being able to reproduce". Darwin also specified sexual selection which means "unable (or less able) to find a mate or incapable (or less capable) of reproduction". Artificial selection is "humans intentionally fucked with their reproduction or genes to select for traits".

    Ai could fall into any of the three depending on situation and perspective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Ok, thanks for that.

    The reason i ask this is because from my perspective I'm not sure anything humans do could be considered outside of nature.

    We are part of it so anything we do is also part of it.

    That's not to imply we aren't stupidly destructive sometimes, but even technology is still something we built, like tool-use apes or birds.

    The difference is in magnitude, not in type.

    There are plenty of creatures that affect the environment around them , with or without tool-use. Sometimes those actions destroy their own habitats, things like overpopulation or key resource exhaustion.

    That we are currently the pinnacle of fucking up our own environment doesn't differentiate us from other natural creatures, other than scale.

    Even the idea of sentience and sapience could be considered evolution of a sort.

    Yes, we have greater understanding about our actions and the consequences, but that's only as a result of traits formed by evolutionary pressures, i wouldn't consider cognitive abilities to be outside of nature either.

    To follow on from that, selective breeding, for instance, would still be natural selection because the environment in which is happens contains only natural elements.

    People sometimes get upset at the idea that we aren't special enough to considered "above" or "outside" nature which i why i try and get their perspective first.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent