• @OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    352 months ago

    About 3 percent of students in the study had positive mental health outcomes, reporting that talking to the chatbot “halted their suicidal ideation.” But researchers also found “there are some cases where their use is either negligible or might actually contribute to suicidal ideation.”

    This is referring to a bot designed to help with people struggling with mental health, and is actually a big one. That number is way too low.

  • Pete Hahnloser
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 months ago

    Imagine a 3% success rate being acceptable in any situation. That tends to get you fired.

    • @sqgl@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      3% success vs what? 6% sent over the edge? 10% 20% ?

      If the journalist asked for a specific figure but was evaded then it should be stated in the article.

      • Pete Hahnloser
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 months ago

        I don’t much like that take. Ars commits excellent journalism.

        From the story:

        About 3 percent of students in the study had positive mental health outcomes, reporting that talking to the chatbot “halted their suicidal ideation.” But researchers also found “there are some cases where their use is either negligible or might actually contribute to suicidal ideation.”

        • @sqgl@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          I don’t think they contacted the researchers and the linked study does not seem to give the answer (I spent a few minutes looking).

            • @sqgl@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              22 months ago

              Ars offers free articles while most publications have a paywall, so I imagine funding isn’t as generous as it would have been 30 years ago when such publications would have been in magazine format.

              • Pete Hahnloser
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 months ago

                Ars is actually my only paid subscription. Didn’t need to, but wanted to support their journalism.

                • @sqgl@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 months ago

                  I mistakenly thought you were the actual journalist. But I should always presume the journalist will see my comments and therefore not be so harsh, especially when freeloading.

                  FWIW I subscribe to an (Australian) online newspaper which is free just like you do. The difference being that I rarely read it since I am on top of those topics largely. Am just glad that it exists for others because it is well researched and presented.

    • halyk.the.red
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      Yeah, I know someone who won’t watch that episode again because of how unsettling it is. Luckily for them, it’s slowly becoming reality.

      • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Nah, not particularly… If you like it up til then, you will probably like it.

        It’s not that I think it got bad or anything, but I think there was a noticeable drop in quality from season 3 to season 4 (the second Netflix season).

        The first two seasons, when it was still on Channel 4 in the UK, were just so fucking good. Only a few episodes each, but man. And the Christmas episode with Jon Hamm, goddamn. So fucking good. Some of the best sci-fi ever put to film imo.

        Then Netflix bought it. Season 3 was good, it had some bangers (I imagine Charlie Brooker had some of the plots ready to go already). Then… I don’t know maybe it’s because they were pushed to write like 3x more episodes per season? The quality suffered.

        The show is still solid, and I will watch the new season for sure. But I don’t know, it’s just not the same as it was.