My comment says "can't be 100% child proof". But you proceeded as if my comment implied child safety is an unreasonable thing to ask about (literally in those w

My comment says "can't be 100% child proof". But you proceeded as if my comment implied child safety is an unreasonable thing to ask about (literally in those words). That's either a bit of extremism or a strawman argument. I was being charitable in that you wouldn't make a bad faith argument and attributed it to a more ideological source. And I think you misunderstood, I don't think your domain is AI since you're saying "solve health and safety risks". People in AI tend to state that problem a lot more concretely than shocking article headlines and tend to use more nuanced language than "solve" since alignment is a complex topic. It's just you're starting your comment by positing that your position is in line with that position of those of Google's experts, and I'm saying that's a great example of zooming in on your domain rather than the larger picture. — After all, the only way to claim that a warning that kids should be supervised "does not actually mitigate the ethical concerns" is either a refusal to look at the larger picture, or a misunderstanding of what mitigate means?