This sort of sensationalist title and article are a great part of the reason why models are nerfed by training them to output absurd disclaimers.
Nobody should expect that AI can be relied upon for anything where the cost of an error is catastrophic. This should be obvious, but if it's not, it should be stated ONCE before one gains access to an interface. After that, losing anyone who fails to take notice and suffers as a result is no longer a catastrophe.
I genuinely disagree. It seems to me like the planet is overpopulated, that there is massively unfavourable bias in terms of who reproduces the most and that, imperfect a proxy for intelligence as it may be, lack of common sense of the magnitude in question is a good enough signal to indicate lack of intelligence, which is itself a decent proxy to indicate lack of contribution to society (intelligent does not imply high value, but stupid implies low value).
The notion that human life is precious is a remnant of times when child bearing was risky, life expectancy was short, agriculture was a bunch of mules and a bunch of peasants and medicine was not scientific and we had massive shortages for manual workers.
These days, if we start to lighten up a bit in the lower half of IQ distribution it might be much more of a blessing than a curse.
The problem though is that those marketing this stuff want it to be taken seriously. They have to sell the "I" in AI. They can't tell you "this is a toy and is not intended for real world use for any consequential purpose", because then they wouldn't have a business.
It should be obvious, youre right. But people are being bullshitted and then blamed for believing the bullshit.
Nobody should expect that AI can be relied upon for anything where the cost of an error is catastrophic. This should be obvious, but if it's not, it should be stated ONCE before one gains access to an interface. After that, losing anyone who fails to take notice and suffers as a result is no longer a catastrophe.