6 ms·

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is better at activating the lizard brain

mslt 29d ago
You’ve not already noticed that the end of every consumer-facing LLM chat always includes an invitation for just one more turn to keep the loop going?
- bad_haircut72 29d ago
  No matter how intelligent they make the AIs they work for openAI/Anthropic, not the users. Our future lies in open, local models, or we might aswell give up our computers altogether
oblio 29d ago
> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.
- matrix87 29d ago
  What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. In general, text based interfaces don't light up the brain in the same way. Psychologically it's a lot easier to walk away from a chatbot vs an infinite feed of short form video... potentially that difference could help find some kind of standard to determine addictiveness Edit: I wonder if a hypothetical digital experience like the samizdat out of infinite jest is possible? I.e. a digital experience which hits the brain in the perfect way to produce addiction without a chemical basis
  - ToucanLoucan 29d ago
    > What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. If you as a person engage with a product to a degree where it causes demonstrable, measurable harm to yourself or your life, you are addicted.
    - matrix87 29d ago
      If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? I think what matters is the intent of the design. E.g. if they design the product to make you need more of it (while it has an actively detrimental effect)
      - ToucanLoucan 29d ago
        > If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? If you repeatedly willingly do so despite the harm, then yes.
        blackqueeriroh 29d ago
        You have moved the goalpost.
        UpsideDownRide 29d ago
        Stop using buzzwords instead of engaging in a discussion. Someone clarifying their position is not necessairly moving goalposts, they might have just not laid out fully their idea in the first place.
        philipallstar 29d ago
        But you still did it. If I sunbathe every day without sun cream, whom do we regulate? Assuming people have no ability to choose.
        stevesimmons 29d ago
phreack 29d ago
I'm not sure about that example. I'm seeing non tech people getting very addicted to their customized chat bots. Companies are very primed to eventually nudge them to enshittify the content of the responses and it could get bad.
brookst 29d ago
Law is about intent. It is not code, and it’s a mistake to think of law like code where you need to unit test and cover all edge cases. In law, it is sufficient to show an intent to take actions that foreseeably caused harm. Specific laws, of course but you don’t need to cover hypotheticals that capture all abstract cases in order to to show a particular actor caused harm.
fwipsy 29d ago
Suppose you have a video service which takes context from previous videos you watched to show you more videos you're interested in. Doesn't sound very addictive, does it? You described it in an innocuous way, but I can absolutely see that being a lead-in to a parasocial "relationship" or even AI psychosis. > you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. doubt. Lonely people will get addicted.
solid_fuel 29d ago
> Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can stop scrolling instagram "at any time", too. Chatbots are actually a pretty poor but very relevant choice of example: they are already tuned with RLHF to be engaging and addictive to talk to. That's a huge reason why LLM psychosis is a thing, and it's a big reason why some people like using chatbots so much. They're designed to be addictive, just like facebook/instagram/tiktok are.
rockskon 29d ago
"You can stop smoking at any time" "You can stop gambling at any time" As much as I may agree with you, you need a different argument.
- Dylan16807 29d ago
  I don't see why. The problem with your examples is that it's a person lying to themselves. GP is acting as an objective third party and telling the truth about their hypothetical. There are lots of things you really can stop at any time. I could stop eating peanut butter at any time, if I had a compelling reason.
  - rockskon 28d ago
    Because if you want to convince someone away from believing it's an addiction so severe it needs an act of government to address, presenting an argument that all-but-panders to their "people spend so much time on it that it must be an addiction!" priors is counter productive.

mslt 29d ago

You’ve not already noticed that the end of every consumer-facing LLM chat always includes an invitation for just one more turn to keep the loop going?

bad_haircut72 29d ago
No matter how intelligent they make the AIs they work for openAI/Anthropic, not the users. Our future lies in open, local models, or we might aswell give up our computers altogether

oblio 29d ago

> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.

matrix87 29d ago
What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. In general, text based interfaces don't light up the brain in the same way. Psychologically it's a lot easier to walk away from a chatbot vs an infinite feed of short form video... potentially that difference could help find some kind of standard to determine addictiveness Edit: I wonder if a hypothetical digital experience like the samizdat out of infinite jest is possible? I.e. a digital experience which hits the brain in the perfect way to produce addiction without a chemical basis
- ToucanLoucan 29d ago
  > What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. If you as a person engage with a product to a degree where it causes demonstrable, measurable harm to yourself or your life, you are addicted.
  - matrix87 29d ago
    If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? I think what matters is the intent of the design. E.g. if they design the product to make you need more of it (while it has an actively detrimental effect)
    - ToucanLoucan 29d ago
      > If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? If you repeatedly willingly do so despite the harm, then yes.
      - blackqueeriroh 29d ago
        You have moved the goalpost.
        UpsideDownRide 29d ago
        Stop using buzzwords instead of engaging in a discussion. Someone clarifying their position is not necessairly moving goalposts, they might have just not laid out fully their idea in the first place.
      - philipallstar 29d ago
        But you still did it. If I sunbathe every day without sun cream, whom do we regulate? Assuming people have no ability to choose.
        stevesimmons 29d ago

phreack 29d ago

I'm not sure about that example. I'm seeing non tech people getting very addicted to their customized chat bots. Companies are very primed to eventually nudge them to enshittify the content of the responses and it could get bad.

brookst 29d ago

Law is about intent. It is not code, and it’s a mistake to think of law like code where you need to unit test and cover all edge cases. In law, it is sufficient to show an intent to take actions that foreseeably caused harm. Specific laws, of course but you don’t need to cover hypotheticals that capture all abstract cases in order to to show a particular actor caused harm.

fwipsy 29d ago

Suppose you have a video service which takes context from previous videos you watched to show you more videos you're interested in. Doesn't sound very addictive, does it? You described it in an innocuous way, but I can absolutely see that being a lead-in to a parasocial "relationship" or even AI psychosis. > you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. doubt. Lonely people will get addicted.

solid_fuel 29d ago

> Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can stop scrolling instagram "at any time", too. Chatbots are actually a pretty poor but very relevant choice of example: they are already tuned with RLHF to be engaging and addictive to talk to. That's a huge reason why LLM psychosis is a thing, and it's a big reason why some people like using chatbots so much. They're designed to be addictive, just like facebook/instagram/tiktok are.

rockskon 29d ago

"You can stop smoking at any time" "You can stop gambling at any time" As much as I may agree with you, you need a different argument.

Dylan16807 29d ago
I don't see why. The problem with your examples is that it's a person lying to themselves. GP is acting as an objective third party and telling the truth about their hypothetical. There are lots of things you really can stop at any time. I could stop eating peanut butter at any time, if I had a compelling reason.
- rockskon 28d ago
  Because if you want to convince someone away from believing it's an addiction so severe it needs an act of government to address, presenting an argument that all-but-panders to their "people spend so much time on it that it must be an addiction!" priors is counter productive.