The article doesn't seem to specify whether Pedro had earned the treat for himself? I don't see the harm in a little self-care/occasional treat?
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
946 points (98.8% liked)
Not The Onion
17476 readers
1385 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sue that therapist for malpractice! Wait....oh.
Pretty sure you can sue the ai company
Pretty sure its in the Tos it can’t be used for therapy.
It used to be even worse. Older version of chatgpt would simply refuse to continue the conversation on the mention of suicide.
What? Its a virtual therapist. Thats the whole point.
I don't think you can sell a sandwich and then write on the back "this sandwich is not for eating" to get out of a case of food poisoning
And thus the flaw in AI is revealed.
But meth is only for Saturdays. Or Tuesdays. Or days with "y" in them.
everyday is meythday if you're spun out enough.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Anytime an article posts shit like this but neglects to include the full context, it reminds me how bad journalism is today if you can even call it that
If I try, not even that hard, I can get gpt to state Hitler was a cool guy and was doing the right thing.
ChatGPT isn't anything in specific other than a token predictor, you can literally make it say anything you want if you know how, it's not hard.
So if you wrote an article about how "gpt said this" or "gpt said that" you better include the full context or I'll assume you are 100% bullshit
You're not wrong but also there's a ton of misinformation out there, both due to bad journalism and also pro-LLM advocates, that is selling the idea that LLMs are actually real AI that is able to think and reason and is operating within ethical boundaries of some kind.
Neither of those things are true but that's what a lot of available information about LLMs would have you believe so it's not difficult to imagine someone engaging with a chatbot ending up with a similar result without trying to force it explicitly via prompt engineering.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This slightly diminishes my fears about the dangers of AI. If they're obviously wrong a lot of the time, in the long run they'll do less damage than they could by being subtly wrong and slightly biased most of the time.
The problem is there are morons that do what these spicy text predictors spit out at them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
> afterallwhynot.jpg