"I can't conceive of such failure mode thus we're safe"

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean...

I think they read the first line of your reply and took it as you arguing that it's nearly impossible for an LLM to give output that would get someone killed.

I was agreeing with them. Why assume wilful ignorance? Have we become the new reddit? People just yelling in disagreement? Maybe it's time to log out and delete this password...

No, Namaria, we were just trying to understand what you meant - which for us resulted cryptic.

Apologies, just found your post confusing and was trying to make sense.

> To avoid that, the bot would have to be a high-ranking professional psychologist with an explicit purpose not to trigger destructive reactions.

Sounds fairly dooable, TBH, given what else they're doing reasonably well at.

> And that would fail the nature of a "consultant", which is something "under best effort to speak the truth" - incompatible direction with "something reassuring".

I don't think they're as incompatible as you appear to.

With reference to the case I mentioned (which seems like a decent border case to point out difficulties), what you want as a consultant is something that tells you "the likelihood of the event is bound to this and that", not something that goes "Oh, everything will be all right, dear". Outside figurative: truth (say, facts, or instances of computation) and comfort may not always be compatible.

> reasonably well

But I wrote «high-ranking professional». «Reasonably well» does not cover the cases relevant to full safety.

And, by the way, such attitude will backfire heavily on false positives.

Anyway: the case presented is there to point to a few difficulties involved in the idea of «not giving out dangerous answers».

if that is the bar to pass for content for public consumption, we're dangerously close to book burning, again.