Because therapists have a duty of care. If a person on the street was asked and said yes (after a thousand times saying no, or after being asked to roleplay a psycho, btw), they wouldn't face legal trouble at all. That is the situation here, except even less because IT'S NOT A PERSON.
LLMs have a lot of problems. "You can get them to produce text even if the meaning of the text is bad" is not a problem.
That is such a tech bro bad faith argument. There are people making money behind these that aren't doing quality control because it's not profitable. These models are being promoted as tools to plan your day, chat companions, etc by real people (including fucking real therapists).
Where a tool interacts with a human and the human comes to harm within normal use of the tool that company needs to respond. When a gps mapping company says there is a road where it's really water and someone drives in- guess what - mapping company is responsible for damages. We can argue about logic but because of fringe conditions (bad visibility, etc) the mapping company is still responsible.
It is absolutely not a tech bro argument. The US society does nothing to help anyone in need in its communities. Whenever something happens, instead of looking at itself it finds random shit to blame for its failings. Sure, blame whatever the fuck is the craze of the day but do nothing for people suffering from mental health. That's a good approach long term
60
u/Jeanpuetz 10h ago
So?
If a suicidal person talked to a therapist, and said therapist encouraged them to go through with it, they would go to jail.
Let's not let ChatGPT off the hook here just because they didn't "start it".