I really want like, a Frieda McFadden-style novel about an AI chatbot serial manipulator now. Basically Michelle Carter…the girl who bullied her boyfriend into killing himself. Except the AI can delete or modify all the evidence.
Comment on Character.ai Faces Lawsuit After Teen’s Suicide
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoWell, we commonly hold the view, as a society, that children cannot consent to sex, especially with an adult. Part of that is because the adult has so much more life experience and less attachment to the relationship. In this case, the app engaged in sexual chatting with a minor (I’m actually extremely curious how that’s not soliciting a minor or some indecency charge since it was content created by the AI fornthar specific user). The AI absolutely understands more than most adults let alone a 14 year old boy, and also has no concept of attachment. It seemed pretty clear he was a minor in his conversations to the app. This is definitely an issue.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Mongostein@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Whoa, SkyNet doesn’t need terminators. It can just bully us in to killing ourselves.
Sorgan71@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It was not sexual. The app cannot produce sexual content.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
echodot@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Okay but at what point do you have to draw the line and say beyond this point you have to take parental responsibility?
We don’t even have to say that what the app did was necessarily acceptable we just have to say whether or not we think that the responsibility falls entirely on the app developers. That’s the key, are they entirely responsible here, always everyone involved just a bit useless?
TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Have you ever raised a teenager? It’s not easy nor straightforward. But encouraging suicidal ideation…kinda is straightforward.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You don’t think the people who make the generative algorithm have a duty to what it generates?
And whatever you think anyway, the company itself shows that it feels obligated about what the AI puts out, because they are constantly trying to stop the AI from giving out bomb instructions and hate speech and illegal sexual content.
The standard is not and was never if they were “entirely” at fault here. It’s whether they have any responsibility towards this (and we all here can see that they do indeed have some), and how much financially that’s worth in damages. That’s the point of this suit. The case isn’t about whether AI itself should be outlawed for minors etc, it’s not the parents who are on trial either.
There’s no world in which I can see AI being given a pass for sexting with a minor because then that allows pedophiles who work for AI companies to be predators and either look at those conversations or even locate vulnerable youth. No company should be given legal protection to harm children.
sandbox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It definitely can, it just has to blur the line a bit to get past the content filter