3 ms·
This comment just reeks of gatekeeping and ludditism. How do you expect something to go from “toy” to “viable” if people are not stepping up to build upon the
by samtho 3y ago
This comment just reeks of gatekeeping and ludditism.
How do you expect something to go from “toy” to “viable” if people are not stepping up to build upon the body of knowledge? A lot of people who have created innovative solutions were likely, by your definition, to be among the “least needed” people in a space.
Maybe you would benefit by trying to understand why a harmless toy and proof-of-concept is so threatening.
- dylan604 3y agomaybe not testing with actual human's fragile mental well being with something being developed as toy, eh? the words toy and mental health should never be mixed together. this is exactly why it is threatening. someone cavalier enough to think that a group of computer programmers throwing together a chatBot to interact with mental health is just, well, mental.
- samtho 3y agoLiterally no one is advocating for this as is to be used as a substitute for currently proven treatment. It shouldn’t mean that we can’t try out different solutions, nor will the final hypothetical product derived from this likely even take the same form or possess the same chat interface. We cannot let fear stall innovation because of someone might use it incorrectly.
- dylan604 3y agoSo says every person that has ever had a thing they made used in a way never intended. Deny users will do something you've never thought about at your own peril. Unfortunately, in cases like this your peril can have very negative consequences. This isn't a case of "manning up" and doing something scary. We're not astronauts going to the moon or any other situation where the decisions made will only affect you. This is a matter that when the product is misused or has a "glitch", it is not the maker that suffers. The fact that you will not even acknowledge this just proves maybe you are not the right person for this.