Well, as someone with a person suffering from pretty severe (like cops and hospitals severe) schizoaffective disorder in my immediate family, I can say that story scared the bejeezus out of me.
If my family member had had ChatGPT, when they had their last episode, it's entirely possible that I might not be here, as "Everyone is plotting to kill me" is a big motif in SAD (it was, in their case, and they needed to be hospitalized). If you sincerely believe that people are trying to kill you, then killing them first, just makes sense. Looks a lot like that's what happened, here.
But it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can't live in a "nerf world," where everything is safe for everyone. Life is Risk and living out of our comfort zone.
I feel that it's important for each of us that is "taking a side," to understand that folks "on the other side" aren't necessarily enemies. They may be blinded by the personal imperative of the issue, but they aren't actually "out to get you."
The politicians may be two-faced creeps, using people's legitimate fears as leverage, but they aren't the rule.
For the record, I am vehemently against "Nerf World," but there's a very, very real problem here, and it would be good if we could approach it in a reasonable manner.
It could be a good idea to see if they do have ChatGPT and if so, it might be helpful to have the Customized GPT turned on with a note that they suffer from X and if signs are showing of Y, then it should attempt to Z.
That's actually not a bad idea, but there's likely to be ramifications that would kill it.
One issue, is that these types of tools can also be abused. If you remember, the Soviet Union was notorious for getting dissidents committed, and the NSA|CIA also likes to brand leakers as "mentally unstable." It's a common foil. It would probably be fairly easy to "poison the context" like this, for any one of us. Could be a great way to go after folks we don't like.
Mental health treatment is a very complex (and fairly primitive) field.
Who's more mentally unfit? The person who's afraid that everyone is out to get them, or the person who thinks others should be locked permanently into a hellhole, on the off chance they could inconvenience them?
I'll lay odds that a bunch of folks on this very forum, are ones that would, at one time, have spent their lives in said hellhole. I'm one.
i love this because before the counterculture we let rape, domestic violence and outright segregation a thing - it's a good argument you're making here.
If my family member had had ChatGPT, when they had their last episode, it's entirely possible that I might not be here, as "Everyone is plotting to kill me" is a big motif in SAD (it was, in their case, and they needed to be hospitalized). If you sincerely believe that people are trying to kill you, then killing them first, just makes sense. Looks a lot like that's what happened, here.
But it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can't live in a "nerf world," where everything is safe for everyone. Life is Risk and living out of our comfort zone.
I feel that it's important for each of us that is "taking a side," to understand that folks "on the other side" aren't necessarily enemies. They may be blinded by the personal imperative of the issue, but they aren't actually "out to get you."
The politicians may be two-faced creeps, using people's legitimate fears as leverage, but they aren't the rule.
For the record, I am vehemently against "Nerf World," but there's a very, very real problem here, and it would be good if we could approach it in a reasonable manner.