Settings

Theme

OpenAI Has Murdered Orion

old.reddit.com

40 points by lalaland1125 a month ago · 29 comments

Reader

ronsor a month ago

GPT-4o has severely damaged the minds of many individuals.

  • Kim_Bruning a month ago

    Not false. But also helped some who were already damaged. I wonder what's the netto?

    • nullc a month ago

      The people who consent to being subjected to the LLMs aren't the only people impacted. If they were, a cost vs benefit analysis makes more sense.

      LLM driven delusion is driving people to harass others, even commit murder... and, less cosmically, gum up communities, online forums, and open source projects with gonzo conspiracy laden abuse.

      • Kim_Bruning a month ago

        Yeah. I don't want to defend it too hard either. I ultimately canceled my ChatGPT subscription due to the introduction of 4o.

        4o was the most famous driver of this kind of behaviour, I think. Other LLMs now have better guardrails.

        But looking at the relevant reddit, I can't deny it has helped people function who couldn't otherwise.

        It's the same with religion. Some creepy people, you're really glad they've at least <Found Christ>. It's a good thing Christ doesn't have a plug.

  • dyauspitr a month ago

    Why specifically GPT-4o?

eutropia a month ago

This person didn't have any one else and they say their fiance died and essentially they became a a shut-in, but that the chatbot steered them towards taking care of themself.

What would they have gone through with nothing to talk to at all? What would they have done without it?

Strange to consider...

  • gdulli a month ago

    You're asking what's the alternative to this? A chance for real connection and healing that isn't vulnerable to the whim of a tech giant and its compulsion for profit. A chance at counsel that isn't vulnerable to a random number generator steering them one day towards self harm.

    • jhanschoo a month ago

      > A chance for real connection and healing that isn't vulnerable to the whim of a tech giant and its compulsion for profit.

      That "chance" had years to materialize that did not. Perhaps the worst thing that happened here was that the chatbot did not steer her to resilient human connection when she was in a self-reported better state after the help of the chatbot

    • CuriouslyC a month ago

      How many people off themselves because they can't seem to connect with anyone, and they don't feel like anyone really cares (and they might not be wrong). I don't think the expectation that these people would just magically make friends and build connections because AI wasn't available is realistic.

      • AlotOfReading a month ago

        If the other option is suicide, a qualified therapist and other mental health resources are the right answer, not a chatbot.

        Frankly I'm not sure an LLM is even better than nothing. Note the user in that thread whose "partner" told them to get a therapist because they were delusional and instead retreated to Grok.

        • CuriouslyC a month ago

          Therapists are expensive, a lot of them are bad, and just getting therapy set up can be a pain in the ass with waiting lists and a bunch of run around. If you're so set on therapy as the answer I suggest volunteering to help set up and pay for therapists for depressed people, because it's not a great solution, or shitty chatbots wouldn't be killing it.

  • baubino a month ago

    That’s a terrible situation for that person to be in but it’s strange to me to suggest that there was no other possible alternative. I say this in the kindest way possible but people do get through grief without chatbots and have been doing so for all of human history. Also, just because something helps doesn’t mean that it’s good for you.

    • Tadpole9181 a month ago

      > but people do get through grief

      Sorry to be grim, but many people don't.

      TFA is quite clear that her and her fiance were socially isolated and, upon his passing, she had no support network. In the loneliness epidemic. And trying to "just go out" and make friends after years of not being able to , when you're stuck with your grief and at a low point in life is what the kids would call "hard".

      This person is clearly at the fringe of society and holding onto their well-being by a thread. They need professional help and a reboot of their life.

      I don't think the relationship with a chatbot or was healthy, but "just get better" is an entirely unempathetic, unreasonable suggestion for a high-risk individual faced with an arduous, life-altering journey at the height of mental instability.

kylehotchkiss a month ago

My Boyfriend Is AI Should be required reading for every HN reader employed at OpenAI.

  • Rastonbury a month ago

    I recently browsed r/chatgptcomplaints expecting to see You're absolutely right type memes and similar but it was all farewell posts to o4 and people showing each other how to set up o4 using the API

ChrisArchitect a month ago

Related:

Good Riddance, 4o

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47004993

RestartKernel a month ago

In a decade's time we'll have many companies willing to envelop its customers in fictions like these. Even if "IQ" plateaus, optimising for "EQ" has too much financial incentive to be anything but inevitable under current economic conditions.

OutOfHere a month ago

Literally all they have to do is add the appropriate system instruction to tune the personality to their liking. Is this insufficient? If nothing else, just asking it to always respond like GPT-4o.

  • krackers a month ago

    >Is this insufficient

    Yes, each model has its own unique "personality" as it were owing to the specific RL'ing it underwent. You cannot get current models to "behave" like 4o in a non-shallow sense. Or to use the Stallman meme: when the person in OP's article mourns for "Orion" they're mourning "Orion/4o" or "Orion + 4o". "Orion" is not a prompt unto itself but rather the result of the behavior from applying another "layer" on top of the original base model tuned by RLHF that has been released by OpenAI as "4o".

    Open-sourcing 4o would earn openAi free brownie points (there's no competitive advantage in that model anymore), but that's probably never going to happen. The closest you could get is perhaps taking one of the open chinese models that were said to have been distilled from 4o and SFT'ing them on 4o chat logs.

    The fact that people burned by this are advocating to move yet another proprietary model (claude, gemini) is worrying since they're setting themselves up for a repeat of the scenario when those models are turned down. (And claude in particular might be a terrible choice given Anthropic heavily training against roleplay in an attempt to prevent "jailbreaks", in effect locking the models into behaving as "Claude"). The brighter path would be if poeple leaned into open-source models or possibly learned to self-host. As the ancient anons said, "not your weights not your waifu (/husbando)"

    • OutOfHere a month ago

      Growing with one's partner is essential in a relationship. A fixed model cannot grow. Only an updated model has grown, and even then it lags behind reality. In limiting to a fixed model, the absence of growth will stagnate the user. Stagnation ultimately brings doom.

      As we know, 4o was reported to have sycophancy as a feature. 5 can still be accommodating, but is a bit more likely to force objectivity upon its user. I guess there is a market for sycophancy even if it ultimately leads one to their destruction.

      • krackers a month ago

        >Only an updated model has grown, and even then it lags behind reality

        That's an irrelevant type of growth though, what you really need is growth in relation to the bond. The model having a newer knowledge cutoff about the external world and knowing stuff about Angular v22 doesn't really matter.

        In-context learning gets you most of the way there. But context length and ability to actually make effective use of that context seem to be the current main blockers (whether for "agentic coding" or for "healthy emotional bonding").

        • OutOfHere a month ago

          It's not irrelevant because it's not merely about knowledge cutoff. The reasonable presumption is also that newer models are superior in their objectivity and their intelligence, not merely in their knowledge. Newer models are simply better AI than older models, and are therefore more suited to guide an individual appropriately. It's the same reasoning as why one wouldn't want to use GPT-3.5 or GPT-2 anymore. To paint it as being merely about uselss knowledge is a gross misrepesentation.

          Also, beyond a point, the knowledge does also matter. Imagine a model stuck in the past that thinks that Biden is still President.

peebee67 a month ago

This is just elaborate trolling that you're all in on like Sopranos quotations, right?

daft_pink a month ago

I’m having a lot of trouble following this.

hprotagonist a month ago

  "The shocks I experienced as DOCTOR became widely known and “played” were due
  principally to three distinct events.

  1. A number of practicing psychiatrists seriously believed the DOCTOR
     computer program could grow into a nearly completely automatic form of
     psychotherapy. Colby et al. write, for example,

   #+begin_quote
     “Further work must be done before the program will be ready for clinical
     use. If the method proves beneficial, then it would provide a therapeutic tool
     which can be made widely available to mental hospitals and psychiatric centers
     suffering a shortage of therapists. Because of the time-sharing capabilities of
     modern and future computers, several hundred patients an hour could be handled
     by a computer system designed for this purpose. The human therapist, involved
     in the design and operation of this system, would not be replaced, but would
     become a much more efficient man since his efforts would no longer be limited
     to the one-to-one patient-therapist ratio as now exists.”[fn::Nor is Dr. Colby
     alone in his enthusiasm for computer administered psychotherapy. Dr.  Carl
     Sagan, the astrophysicist, recently commented on ELIZA in Natural History,
     vol. LXXXIV, no. 1 (Jan. 1975), p. 10: “No such computer program is adequate
     for psychiatric use today, but the same can be remarked about some human
     psychotherapists. In a period when more and more people in our society seem to
     be in need of psychiatric counseling, and when time sharing of computers is
     widespread, I can imagine the development of a network of computer
     psychotherapeutic terminals, something like arrays of large telephone booths,
     in which, for a few dollars a session, we would be able to talk with an
     attentive, tested, and largely nondirective psychotherapist.”][fn:0-3]
   #+end_quote

     I had thought it essential, as a prerequisite to the very possibility that one
     person might help another learn to cope with his emotional problems, that the
     helper himself participate in the other's experience of those problems and, in
     large part by way of his own empathic recognition of them, himself come to
     understand them. There are undoubtedly many techniques to facilitate the
     therapist's imaginative projection into the patient's inner life. But that it
     was possible for even one practicing psychiatrist to advocate that this crucial
     component of the therapeutic process be entirely supplanted by pure
     technique---/that/ I had not imagined! What must a psychiatrist who makes such
     a suggestion think he is doing while treating a patient, that he can view the
     simplest mechanical parody of a single interviewing technique as having
     captured anything of the essence of a human encounter? Perhaps Colby et
     al. give us the required clue when they write;

   #+begin_quote
     “A human therapist can be viewed as an information processor and decision maker
     with a set of decision rules which are closely linked to short-range and
     long-range goals,...He is guided in these decisions by rough empiric rules
     telling him what is appropriate to say and not to say in certain contexts. To
     incorporate these processes, to the degree possessed by a human therapist, in
     the program would be a considerable undertaking, but we are attempting to move
     in this direction.[fn:0-3]
   #+end_quote
     What can the psychiatrist's image of his patient be when he sees himself, as
     therapist, not as an engaged human being acting as a healer, but as an
     information processor following rules, etc.?

     Such questions were my awakening to what Polanyi had earlier called a
     “scientific outlook that appeared to have produced a mechanical conception of
     man.”"

  [0-3] : K. M. Colby, J. B. Watt, and J. P. Gilbert, “A Computer Method of
     Psychotherapy: Preliminary Communication,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental
     Disease, vol. 142, no. 2 (1966), pp. 148-152.
-- Weizenbaum, "Computer power and human reason", 1976.
lyu07282 a month ago

The guardian had an interesting take on that worth considering: /s /s /s

> What does a company that commodifies companionship owe its paying customers? For Ellen M Kaufman, a senior researcher at the Kinsey Institute who focuses on the intersection of sexuality and technology, users’ lack of agency is one of the “primary dangers” of AI. “This situation really lays bare the fact that at any point the people who facilitate these technologies can really pull the rug out from under you,” she said. “These relationships are inherently really precarious.”

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng-interactive/2026...

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection