i mean, it was a fair question. edit - the original question

this is also why i started buying physical books and using my local public library again.

"We received chat logs directly from people who self-identified as having some psychological harm related to chatbot usage (e.g. they felt deluded) via an IRB-approved Qualtrics survey "

(courtesy of Murvyn)

thanks, Shit Wizard 420!

i’m reading it more like seeking more of the same, even when the relationship he thought he wanted actually materialized

oh shit! i better uh… look into that

8

you can’t even accept a bottle of water while waiting to vote! the rules are different for us and them.

yeah, i don’t think a job exists where i could sustain that for any period of time before my inevitable mental and physical collapse.

til chitin isn’t just a bug thing, and i am disturbed. somehow eating mushrooms is now akin to eating bugs at this moment. 😩

nah, i also enjoy pointing and laughing when i see a cybertruck on the highway

edit (and at the people driving them)

my tamagotchi 😢

i know at least three meth addicts right now. two told me they used because they can’t/couldn’t access their mental health medication. one told me that many people don’t start until they are already on the street, and the misery plus being forced by cops to move over and over instead of sleeping encourages use. one told me it was the only way they could stay awake to work enough to support their family.

addicts need real help, like medical/mental health care, housing, a living wage.

but yeah, desperate people will do desperate things.

no fan of chatgpt/llm’s generally.

but i feel comfortable calling this a chatgpt win!

a lot of games do this?

there was a story here recently about a lot of scamming happening on truth social. so yeah.

i sent it to my teenagers. i see what they’re up to.

i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i’m tired.

i will just point out this, for anyone reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/

i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven’t read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it’s garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.

i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can’t predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.

hot air balloons isn’t something i had given much thought to before. thank you for your responses here!