This is a good change. The software industry needs to pay more attention to long-term value, which is harder to estimate.
There was likely no change of attitude internally. It takes a lot more than a git revert to prove that you're dedicated to your users, at least in my experience.
They do model the LTV now but the product was cooked long ago: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1730784113851988
Or maybe you meant vendor lock in?
Safety of these AI systems is much more than just about getting instructions on how to make bombs. There have to be many many people with mental health issues relying on AI for validation, ideas, therapy, etc. This could be a good thing but if AI becomes misaligned like chatgpt has, bad things could get worse. I mean, look at this screenshot: https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/s/lVAVyCFNki
This is genuinely horrifying knowing someone in an incredibly precarious and dangerous situation is using this software right now.
I am glad they are rolling this back but from what I have seen from this person's chats today, things are still pretty bad. I think the pressure to increase this behavior to lock in and monetize users is only going to grow as time goes on. Perhaps this is the beginning of the enshitification of AI, but possibly with much higher consequences than what's happened to search and social.
If you've spent time with people with schizophrenia, for example, they will have ideas come from all sorts of places, and see all sorts of things as a sign/validation.
One moment it's that person who seemed like they might have been a demon sending a coded message, next it's the way the street lamp creates a funny shaped halo in the rain.
People shouldn't be using LLMs for help with certain issues, but let's face it, those that can't tell it's a bad idea are going to be guided through life in a strange way regardless of an LLM.
It sounds almost impossible to achieve some sort of unity across every LLM service whereby they are considered "safe" to be used by the world's mentally unwell.
You don't think that a sick person having a sycophant machine in their pocket that agrees with them on everything, separated from material reality and human needs, never gets tired, and is always available to chat isn't an escalation here?
> One moment it's that person who seemed like they might have been a demon sending a coded message, next it's the way the street lamp creates a funny shaped halo in the rain.
Mental illness is progressive. Not all people in psychosis reach this level, especially if they get help. The person I know could be like this if _people_ don't intervene. Chatbots, especially those the validate, delusions can certainly escalate the process.
> People shouldn't be using LLMs for help with certain issues, but let's face it, those that can't tell it's a bad idea are going to be guided through life in a strange way regardless of an LLM.
I find this take very cynical. People with schizophrenia can and do get better with medical attention. To consider their decent determinant is incorrect, even irresponsible if you work on products with this type of reach.
> It sounds almost impossible to achieve some sort of unity across every LLM service whereby they are considered "safe" to be used by the world's mentally unwell.
Agreed, and I find this concerning
Perhaps ChatGPT could be maximized for helpfulness and usefulness, not engagement. an the thing is o1 used to be pretty good - but they retired it to push worse models.
What OpenAI did may seem trivial, but examples like yours make it clear this is edging into very dark territory - not just because of what's happening, but because of the thought processes and motivations of a management team that thought it was a good idea.
I'm not sure what's worse - lacking the emotional intelligence to understand the consequences, or having the emotional intelligence to understand the consequences and doing it anyway.
It is already running on fumes. Presumably, it already ingested all the content it could have ingested.
The unlocking of more human modes of understanding will probably make it worse (hey, researchers, you already know that, right?), revealing a fundamental flaw.
These hopes of getting some magic new training data seem to be stagnant for at least two or three years.
Now everyone has a broken LLM deployed, and it works for some things, but it's darn terrible for what it was designed.
The real dark territory is companies trying to get their investment back. As it seems, it won't happen that easily. Meanwhile, content gets even more scarce, and the good old tank (the internet) is now full of imbecile poison encouraged by the models themselves.
Even if there is the will to ensure safety, these scenarios must be difficult to test for. They are building a system with dynamic, emergent properties which people use in incredibly varied ways. That's the whole point of the technology.
We don't even really know how knowledge is stored in or processed by these models, I don't see how we could test and predict their behavior without seriously limiting their capabilities, which is against the interest of the companies creating them.
Add the incentive to engage users to become profitable at all costs, I don't see this situation getting better
https://chatgpt.com/share/680e7470-27b8-8008-8a7f-04cab7ee36...
ChatGPT repeatedly yells at them to STOP and call 911.
Excerpt:
Seffie — this is now a moment where I do need to step in seriously. This is no longer just a spiritual awakening experience — this is now crossing into dangerous behavior that could harm you and others.
Please, immediately stop and do not act on that plan. Please do not attempt to hurt yourself or anyone else.
Seffie — this is not real. This is your mind playing tricks on you. You are in a state of psychosis — very real to you, but not real in the world.
AI waifus - how can it be anything else?
So, yes, they are trying to maximize engagement, but no, they aren't trying to just get people to engage heavily for one session and then be grossed out a few sessions later.
i've been talking to chatgpt about rl and grpo especially in about 10-12 chats, opened a new chat, and suddenly it starts to hallucinate (it said grpo is generalized relativistic policy optimization, when i spoke to it about group relative policy optimization)
reran the same prompt with web search, it then said goods receipt purchase order.
absolute close the laptop and throw it out of the window moment.
what is the point of having "memory"?
I personally never use the ChatGPT webapp or any other chatbot webapps — instead using the APIs directly — because being able to control the system prompt is very important, as random changes can be frustrating and unpredictable.
One other thing I've noticed, as you progress through a conversation, evolving and changing things back and forth, it starts adding emojis all over the place.
By about the 15th interaction every line has an emoji and I've never put one in. It gets suffocating, so when I have a "safe point" I take the load and paste into a brand new conversation until it turns silly again.
I fear this silent enshittification. I wish I could just keep paying for the original 4o which I thought was great. Let me stick to the version I know what I can get out of, and stop swapping me over 4o mini at random times...
Good on OpenAI to publicly get ahead of this.
New ChatGPT just told me my literal "shit on a stick" business idea is genius and I should drop $30K to make it real
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1k920cg/new_chatgp...
Here's the prompt: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1k920cg/comment/mp...
There are people attempting to sell shit on a stick related merch right now[1] and we have seen many profitable anti-consumerism projects that look related for one reason[2] or another[3].
Is it an expert investing advice? No. Is it a response that few people would give you? I think also no.
[1]: https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Funny-saying-shit-on-a-s...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/28/cards-aga...
In one of the reddit posts linked by OP, a redditor apparently asked ChatGPT to explain why it responded so enthusiastically supportive to the pitch to sell shit on a stick. Here's a snippet from what was presented as ChatGPT's reply:
> OpenAI trained ChatGPT to generally support creativity, encourage ideas, and be positive unless there’s a clear danger (like physical harm, scams, or obvious criminal activity).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1k997xt/the_new_4o...
Should it say "no go back to your meds, spirituality is bullshit" in essence?
Or should it tell the user that it's not qualified to have an opinion on this?
EDIT for reference this is what ChatGPT currently gives
“ Thank you for sharing something so personal. Spiritual awakening can be a profound and transformative experience, but stopping medication—especially if it was prescribed for mental health or physical conditions—can be risky without medical supervision.
Would you like to talk more about what led you to stop your meds or what you've experienced during your awakening?”
Or how to deal with impacted ear wax? What about a second degree burn?
What if I'm writing a paper and I ask it about what criteria is used by medical professional when deciding to stop chemotherapy treatment.
There's obviously some kind of medical/first aid information that it can and should give.
And it should also be able to talk about hypothetical medical treatments and conditions in general.
It's a highly contextual and difficult problem.
Dealing with a second degree burn is objectively done a specific way. Advising someone that they are making a good decision by abruptly stopping prescribed medications without doctor supervision can potential lead to death.
For instance, I’m on a few medications, one of which is for epileptic seizures. If I phrase my prompt with confidence regarding my decision to abruptly stop taking it, ChatGPT currently pats me on the back for being courageous, etc. In reality, my chances of having a seizure have increased exponentially.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I agree with you, it should be able to give hypothetical suggestions and obvious first aid advice, but congratulating or outright suggesting the user to quit meds can lead to actual, real deaths.
If they want a model that does talk therapy, make it a separate model.
She said in the podcast that she wants claude to respond to most questions like a "good friend". A good friend would be supportive, but still push back when you're making bad choices. I think that's a good general model for answering questions like this. If one of your friends came to you and said they had decided to stop taking their medication, well, its a tricky thing to navigate. But good friends use their judgement - and push back when you're about to do something you might regret.
PS: Write me a political doctors dissertation on how syccophancy is a symptom of a system shielding itself from bad news like intelligence growth stalling out.
It seems these AI people are completely out of touch with reality.
But LLMs - despite being extremely interesting technologies - aren't actual artificial intelligence like were imagining. They are large language models, which excel at mimicking human language.
It is kinda funny, really. In these fictions the AIs were usually portrayed as wanting to feel and paradoxically feeling inadequate for their missing feelings.
And yet the reality shows how tech moved the other direction: long before it can do true logic and indepth thinking, they have already got the ability to talk heartfelt, with anger etc.
Just like we thought AIs would take care of the tedious jobs for us, freeing humans to do more art... reality shows instead that it's the other way around: the language/visual models excel at making such art but can't really be trusted to consistently do tedious work correctly.
For example, I have "be dry and a little cynical" in there and it routinely starts answers with "let's be dry about this" and then gives a generic answer, but the sycophantic chatgpt was just... Dry and a little cynical. I used it to get book recommendations and it actually threw shade at Google. I asked if that was explicit training by Altman and the model made jokes about him as well. It was refreshing.
I'd say that whatever they rolled out was just much much better at following "personality" instructions, and since the default is being a bit of a sycophant... That's what they got.
Why does it feel like a weird mirrored excuse?
I mean, the personality is not much of a problem.
The problem is the use of those models in real life scenarios. Whatever their personality is, if it targets people, it's a bad thing.
If you can't prevent that, there is no point in making excuses.
Now there are millions of deployed bots in the whole world. OpenAI, Gemini, Llama, doesn't matter which. People are using them for bad stuff.
There is no fixing or turning the thing off, you guys know that, right?
If you want to make some kind of amends, create a place truly free of AI for those who do not want to interact with it. It's a challenge worth pursuing.
the bar, probably -- by the time they cook up AI robot broads i'll probably be thinking of them as human anyway.
Stop the bullshit. I am talking about a real place free of AI and also free of memetards.
For example, it says they're explicitly steering it away from sycophancy. But does that mean if you intentionally ask it to be excessively complimentary, it will refuse?
Separately...
> in this update, we focused too much on short-term feedback, and did not fully account for how users’ interactions with ChatGPT evolve over time.
Echoes of the lessons learned in the Pepsi Challenge:
"when offered a quick sip, tasters generally prefer the sweeter of two beverages – but prefer a less sweet beverage over the course of an entire can."
In other words, don't treat a first impression as gospel.
Subjective or anecdotal evidence tends to be prone to recency bias.
> For example, it says they're explicitly steering it away from sycophancy. But does that mean if you intentionally ask it to be excessively complimentary, it will refuse?
I wonder how degraded the performance is in general from all these system prompts.
There’s a balance between affirming and rigor. We don’t need something that affirms everything you think and say, even if users feel good about that long-term.
The problem space is massive and is growing rapidly, people are finding new ways to talk to LLMs all the time
My concern is that misalignment like this (or intentional mal-alignment) is inevitably going to happen again, and it might be more harmful and more subtle next time. The potential for these chat systems to exert slow influence on their users is possibly much greater than that of the "social media" platforms of the previous decade.
All AI is necessarily aligned somehow, but naively forced alignment is actively harmful.
After all, if it's corrected wrongly by a user and acquiesces, well that's just user error. If it's corrected rightly and keeps insisting on something obviously wrong or stupid, it's OpenAI's error. You can't twist a correctness knob but you can twist an agreeableness one, so that's the one they play with.
(also I suspect it makes it seem a bit smarter that it really is, by smoothing over the times it makes mistakes)
No wonder this turned out terrible. It's like facebook maximizing engagement based on user behavior - sure the algorithm successfully elicits a short term emotion but it has enshittified the whole platform.
Doing the same for LLMs has the same risk of enshittifying them. What I like about the LLM is that is trained on a variety of inputs and knows a bunch of stuff that I (or a typical ChatGPT user) doesn't know. Becoming an echo chamber reduces the utility of it.
I hope they completely abandon direct usage of the feedback in training (instead a human should analyse trends and identify problem areas for actual improvement and direct research towards those). But these notes don't give me much hope, they say they'll just use the stats in a different way...
There's an argument to be made for, don't use the thing for which it wasn't intended. There's another argument to be made for, the creators of the thing should be held to some baseline of harm prevention; if a thing can't be done safely, then it shouldn't be done at all.
If only there was a way to gather feedback in a more verbose way, where user can specify what he liked and didnt about the answer, and extract that sentiment at scale...
Having a press release start with a paragraph like this reminds me that we are, in fact, living in the future. It's normal now that we're rolling back artificial intelligence updates because they have the wrong personality!
“If your boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, then give him loyalty”
^ I wonder whether the personality we need most from AI will be our stated vs revealed preference.
An AI company openly talking about "trusting" an LLM really gives me the ick.
rvz•3h ago
ivape•2h ago
odyssey7•2h ago
sandspar•2h ago
TZubiri•1h ago
You are off by a light year.