3 ms·

What if I'm a role playing bot(tom) saying I'm a doctor? What if I don't disclose that I'm playing a role? What if I did originally disclose that I was rolepl

What if I'm a role playing bot(tom) saying I'm a doctor? What if I don't disclose that I'm playing a role? What if I did originally disclose that I was roleplaying but that was thousands of incredibly convincing highly detailed comments ago and only the one time? What if I'm literally just WebMD but presented in such a fashion as "because you are experiencing X there is a high likelihood that you have $disease and should implement $cure immediately" without the traditional hedging and qualifying? What if most of the audience seeing an advertisment for a medical intervention hearing "symptoms include x, y, z, death, godhood, and the ability to commune with the devil" truly believe that they themselves are very likely or certain to experience not just one but all of the listed symptoms every single time they are exposed to said intervention? Should the rule of law protect the vulnerable (those susceptible to influence), or not? I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. I'd rather software didn't have superficial culturally influenced laws attached to them, but it is easy to see the harm even if I am rather comfortable with darwinian selection. My being okay with people selecting themselves out of the pool does not preclude me from being able to see that they might want some outside protection from doing so. To me, the mentioned McDonald's case is pure nonsense. There is no world in which I pay anyone for damages resulting from their interaction with coffee I served them. I do not believe that there are any people who are going to ask me for a coffee, receive it, spill it upon themselves by tampering with the vessel I provided it in, and then be mad to find out that it was indeed quite hot and that there was a reason I put a lid on it. But it is also instructive in the relevant mechanism. My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife. We learn from the case that laws, the "court of public opinion", and genuine morality, bear only passing resemblance. See the recent ongoing case in which an LLM provider is being sued for providing advice on how to carry out a shooting as if the same information is not available on countless websites. See the relatively recent outrage over video games causing an increase in violence.

ben_w 6mo ago
> I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. Indeed. But all your questions are why I'm, as I said, unclear if it should be illegal. > My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife. Hotter than expected, because it was hotter than anyone else provided it. As I showed, you were in error to claim '"I was burned by your hot coffee that's illegal" was the entire argument'. The jury even determined the fault was 20% hers, 80% McDonald's. Also the final settlement in her case was undisclosed, so you can't tell if it was or wasn't close to a million; the jury decided on $2.8m between actual damages (harm to her) and punitive damages (to deter McDonald's), the judge reduced it $640k, both sides appealed before settling confidentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... I'm from a culture where even the cops don't have guns, so I don't know what the gun analogy of this would look like. Handing someone a fully automatic pistol when all other gun providers only supply manual? So everyone knows it's dangerous, but the people who buy one are wildly wrong about how dangerous?

ben_w 6mo ago

> I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. Indeed. But all your questions are why I'm, as I said, unclear if it should be illegal. > My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife. Hotter than expected, because it was hotter than anyone else provided it. As I showed, you were in error to claim '"I was burned by your hot coffee that's illegal" was the entire argument'. The jury even determined the fault was 20% hers, 80% McDonald's. Also the final settlement in her case was undisclosed, so you can't tell if it was or wasn't close to a million; the jury decided on $2.8m between actual damages (harm to her) and punitive damages (to deter McDonald's), the judge reduced it $640k, both sides appealed before settling confidentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... I'm from a culture where even the cops don't have guns, so I don't know what the gun analogy of this would look like. Handing someone a fully automatic pistol when all other gun providers only supply manual? So everyone knows it's dangerous, but the people who buy one are wildly wrong about how dangerous?