4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut we can aim for zero, right?
- nradov 9mo agoSome 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 agoThis 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 agoI want my service to have 100% uptime. How is that an actionable statement.