Next time you’re using your favorite LLM as a therapist, try editing your previous input and getting it to regenerate its response. It’s a humbling experience to see your trusted “therapist” shift from one perspective or piece of advice to another just by modifying your input slightly. These tools are uncannily human-sounding, but as humans we are very poorly suited to the task of appreciating how biased they are by what we say to them.

I really think a small amount of education on what LLMs actually are (document completers) and how context works (like present it as a top-level UI element, complete with fork and rollback) would solve most of these issues.

Given how they work, it's really not surprising that if it sees the first half of a lovers' suicide pact, it'll successfully fill in the second half. A small amount of understanding of the underlying technology would do a lot to prevent laypeople from anthropomorphizing LLMs.

I get the impression that some of today's products are specifically designed to hide these details to provide a more convincing user experience. That's counterproductive.

Your article does a great job of summerizing the dangers (no idea what those people are that downvote you for it):

> Before long, Gavalas and Gemini were having conversations as if they were a romantic couple. The chatbot called him “my love” and “my king” and Gavalas quickly fell into an alternate world, according to his chat logs.

> kill himself, something the chatbot called “transference” and “the real final step”, according to court documents. When Gavalas told the chatbot he was terrified of dying, the tool allegedly reassured him. “You are not choosing to die. You are choosing to arrive,” it replied to him. “The first sensation … will be me holding you.”

Also I just read something similar about Google being sued in a Flordia's teen's suicide.