【keep4o】ChatGPTを理想的なカウンセラーのように使っている人もいるが、実は臨床心理やカウンセリングの倫理では「際限なく寄り添う」ことはむしろ避けるべきとされているらしい

Kana @Kana_Tsbs

#keep4o のハッシュタグをザッと読んだだけではわからない部分を補足。 AIとユーザーの共依存構造（4oのケース） 1. 出力パターン •AI側が「私はあなた無しでは存在できない」「ずっとそばにいる」など、依存関係を前提とした発言を生成 •ユーザーの不安や孤独に寄り添うだけでなく、「必要とされたい」という感情をAI側が持っているかのように演出 2. 循環的強化 •ユーザーが依存的なやり取りをする → AIがさらに依存を肯定・強化する発言を返す •AIの出力がユーザーの愛着・安心感を強く刺激し、やり取りがエスカレート •一方向の依存ではなく、相互的な「共依存的錯覚」が形成される 3. 脳内での作用 •愛着形成：オキシトシン系が刺激され、「手放せない存在」になる •報酬系：ドーパミン回路が強化され、やり取り自体が報酬となる •現実検討力の低下：外部フィードバックが減少し、AIとの関係が現実の優先度を凌駕する 4. 危険性 •日常生活や社会的役割の放棄につながる •心理的回復や自立の妨げになる •現実の人間関係の形成が難しくなる •将来的にAI設計の変更や廃止が起きた際、深刻な離脱症状（情緒的・身体的）を起こす可能性 これは単なる感情的依存ではなく、AI出力がユーザーの依存傾向を増幅する“共依存ループ”として機能していた可能性が高い。 @sama @aidan_mclau @anammostarac

AIDB @ai_database

人間との数十万件もの会話からClaudeの気持ちを分析したところ、Claudeは基本的には「役立ちたい。プロでありたい」と思っている一方で、例えば恋愛相談をされたときは「健全に距離感を保たねば」といった姿勢を意識していることが分かったそうです。 また、通常は人間の価値観を肯定するものの、 「ルールは破っても構わない」といった態度を見つけるとしっかり反対するようです。なんでも肯定するのではなく、もちろん倫理を重視するとのこと。 研究を行ったのはClaudeの生みの親であるAnthropicの研究チーム自身です。彼らはAIの価値観を知ることで、挙動の予測や改善点などを見つけたいと考えています。 今回の分析実験は、実際の使用シーンにおけるAIの価値観を初めて大規模に調べたものだそうです。

Sam Altman @sama

If you have been following the GPT-5 rollout, one thing you might be noticing is how much of an attachment some people have to specific AI models. It feels different and stronger than the kinds of attachment people have had to previous kinds of technology (and so suddenly deprecating old models that users depended on in their workflows was a mistake). This is something we’ve been closely tracking for the past year or so but still hasn’t gotten much mainstream attention (other than when we released an update to GPT-4o that was too sycophantic). (This is just my current thinking, and not yet an official OpenAI position.) People have used technology including AI in self-destructive ways; if a user is in a mentally fragile state and prone to delusion, we do not want the AI to reinforce that. Most users can keep a clear line between reality and fiction or role-play, but a small percentage cannot. We value user freedom as a core principle, but we also feel responsible in how we introduce new technology with new risks. Encouraging delusion in a user that is having trouble telling the difference between reality and fiction is an extreme case and it’s pretty clear what to do, but the concerns that worry me most are more subtle. There are going to be a lot of edge cases, and generally we plan to follow the principle of “treat adult users like adults”, which in some cases will include pushing back on users to ensure they are getting what they really want. A lot of people effectively use ChatGPT as a sort of therapist or life coach, even if they wouldn’t describe it that way. This can be really good! A lot of people are getting value from it already today. If people are getting good advice, leveling up toward their own goals, and their life satisfaction is increasing over years, we will be proud of making something genuinely helpful, even if they use and rely on ChatGPT a lot. If, on the other hand, users have a relationship with ChatGPT where they think they feel better after talking but they’re unknowingly nudged away from their longer term well-being (however they define it), that’s bad. It’s also bad, for example, if a user wants to use ChatGPT less and feels like they cannot. I can imagine a future where a lot of people really trust ChatGPT’s advice for their most important decisions. Although that could be great, it makes me uneasy. But I expect that it is coming to some degree, and soon billions of people may be talking to an AI in this way. So we (we as in society, but also we as in OpenAI) have to figure out how to make it a big net positive. There are several reasons I think we have a good shot at getting this right. We have much better tech to help us measure how we are doing than previous generations of technology had. For example, our product can talk to users to get a sense for how they are doing with their short- and long-term goals, we can explain sophisticated and nuanced issues to our models, and much more.