3 ms·

What's your acceptable number of murder/suicides?

by evan_ 9mo ago

dpark 9mo ago
This is a doubly dishonest question. It’s dishonest firstly for intending to invoke moral outrage rather than actual discussion. This is like someone chiming into a conversation about swimming pool safety by saying “How many children drowning is acceptable?” This is not a real question. It’s a rhetorical device to mute discussion because the emotional answer is zero. No one wants any children drowning. But in reality we do accept some children drowning in exchange for general availability of swimming pools and we all know it. This is secondly dishonest because the person you are replying to was specifically talking about murder-suicides associated with LLM chatbots and you reframed it as a question about all murder-suicides. Obviously there is no number of murder-suicides that anyone wants, but that has nothing to do with whether ChatGPT actually causes murder-suicides.
cruffle_duffle 9mo ago
That is a bad faith argument. Unless we take away agency the number will always be non-zero. It’s the type of question asked by weasel politicians to do strip away fundamental human rights.
- evan_ 9mo ago
  But we can aim for zero, right?
  - nradov 9mo ago
    Some countries such as Canada are aiming to increase the suicide rate. We can argue about whether that's a good or bad thing but the aim is obviously not zero. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po All else being equal a lower murder rate would obviously be good, but not at the cost of increasing government power and creating a nanny state.
  - dpark 9mo ago
    This is still a bad faith argument. No one wants suicides increasing as a result of AI chatbot usage. So what is the point of your question? You are trying to drain nuance from the conversation to turn it into a black and white statement. If “aim for zero” means we should restrict access to chatbots with zero statical evidence, no. We should not engage in moral panic. We should figure out what dangers these pose and then decide what appropriate actions, if any, should be taken. We should not give in to knee jerk reactions because we read a news story.
  - cruffle_duffle 9mo ago
    I want my service to have 100% uptime. How is that an actionable statement.

What's your acceptable number of murder/suicides?

by evan_ 9mo ago

What's your acceptable number of murder/suicides?

dpark 9mo ago

This is a doubly dishonest question. It’s dishonest firstly for intending to invoke moral outrage rather than actual discussion. This is like someone chiming into a conversation about swimming pool safety by saying “How many children drowning is acceptable?” This is not a real question. It’s a rhetorical device to mute discussion because the emotional answer is zero. No one wants any children drowning. But in reality we do accept some children drowning in exchange for general availability of swimming pools and we all know it. This is secondly dishonest because the person you are replying to was specifically talking about murder-suicides associated with LLM chatbots and you reframed it as a question about all murder-suicides. Obviously there is no number of murder-suicides that anyone wants, but that has nothing to do with whether ChatGPT actually causes murder-suicides.

cruffle_duffle 9mo ago

That is a bad faith argument. Unless we take away agency the number will always be non-zero. It’s the type of question asked by weasel politicians to do strip away fundamental human rights.

evan_ 9mo ago
But we can aim for zero, right?
- nradov 9mo ago
  Some countries such as Canada are aiming to increase the suicide rate. We can argue about whether that's a good or bad thing but the aim is obviously not zero. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po All else being equal a lower murder rate would obviously be good, but not at the cost of increasing government power and creating a nanny state.
- dpark 9mo ago
  This is still a bad faith argument. No one wants suicides increasing as a result of AI chatbot usage. So what is the point of your question? You are trying to drain nuance from the conversation to turn it into a black and white statement. If “aim for zero” means we should restrict access to chatbots with zero statical evidence, no. We should not engage in moral panic. We should figure out what dangers these pose and then decide what appropriate actions, if any, should be taken. We should not give in to knee jerk reactions because we read a news story.
- cruffle_duffle 9mo ago
  I want my service to have 100% uptime. How is that an actionable statement.