3 ms·

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

by pton_xd 5mo ago

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> purpose of a gun is to kill things I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
- pton_xd 5mo ago
  Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
    - dugidugout 5mo ago
      > a chat bot We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.
        dugidugout 5mo ago
        Regarding guns and chat bots. You've said as much and the origin of the discussion says as much. Where does anyone suggest they are referring to use of LLMs in military deployments other than you?
  - vorticalbox 5mo ago
    Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.
  - chrisco255 5mo ago
    A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.
    - bob1029 5mo ago
      > A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.
- micromacrofoot 5mo ago
  you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
  - RoddaWallPro 5mo ago
    I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
    - XorNot 5mo ago
      The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training. And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either. And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.
    - micromacrofoot 5mo ago
      Small arms are one of the greatest scourges of machinery humanity has ever seen. It doesn't matter how many bullets have been fired. Their circulation has, and continues to, cause endless chains of suffering in nearly every corner of the world.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.
- StilesCrisis 5mo ago
  A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.
  - devonkim 5mo ago
    Many gun proponents seem to think of them like most people do knives when knives have many, many domestic purposes beyond killing things that have a life. Same things with cars given there's many things cars can do besides get people and things from place to place.
- BeetleB 5mo ago
  > whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing. The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).
  - m463 5mo ago
    Even "purpose" might be anthropomorphizing the chatbot
    - BeetleB 5mo ago
      Not at all. A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle.
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle. They each have multiple purposes.
rurp 5mo ago
The AI slop accounts that are absolutely flooding social media and are controlled by scammers or propagandists are there to help people?
clear-octopus 5mo ago
[dead]
BLKNSLVR 5mo ago
The purpose of chat bots is profit (which could well be argued to help a select few people). Alternative take: The purpose of "thing" is "what it is used for", which is a crude variation of "the purpose of a system is what it does". Reducing it to a single definition is almost always going to be inaccurate. The way it is used defines it's purpose. The screwdriver was used to open the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. The gun was used to make a hole in the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. Purpose is a per-unique-scenario proposition. The best tool for the job is the one that's available. To intentionally misquote Arthur Weasley: "What exactly is the purpose of a rubber duck?"

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

by pton_xd 5mo ago

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

> purpose of a gun is to kill things I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.

pton_xd 5mo ago
Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
  - dugidugout 5mo ago
    > a chat bot We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.
      - dugidugout 5mo ago
        Regarding guns and chat bots. You've said as much and the origin of the discussion says as much. Where does anyone suggest they are referring to use of LLMs in military deployments other than you?
- vorticalbox 5mo ago
  Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.
- chrisco255 5mo ago
  A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.
  - bob1029 5mo ago
    > A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.
micromacrofoot 5mo ago
you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
- RoddaWallPro 5mo ago
  I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
  - XorNot 5mo ago
    The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training. And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either. And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.
  - micromacrofoot 5mo ago
    Small arms are one of the greatest scourges of machinery humanity has ever seen. It doesn't matter how many bullets have been fired. Their circulation has, and continues to, cause endless chains of suffering in nearly every corner of the world.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.
StilesCrisis 5mo ago
A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.
- devonkim 5mo ago
  Many gun proponents seem to think of them like most people do knives when knives have many, many domestic purposes beyond killing things that have a life. Same things with cars given there's many things cars can do besides get people and things from place to place.
BeetleB 5mo ago
> whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing. The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).
- m463 5mo ago
  Even "purpose" might be anthropomorphizing the chatbot
  - BeetleB 5mo ago
    Not at all. A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle. They each have multiple purposes.

rurp 5mo ago

The AI slop accounts that are absolutely flooding social media and are controlled by scammers or propagandists are there to help people?

clear-octopus 5mo ago

[dead]

BLKNSLVR 5mo ago

The purpose of chat bots is profit (which could well be argued to help a select few people). Alternative take: The purpose of "thing" is "what it is used for", which is a crude variation of "the purpose of a system is what it does". Reducing it to a single definition is almost always going to be inaccurate. The way it is used defines it's purpose. The screwdriver was used to open the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. The gun was used to make a hole in the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. Purpose is a per-unique-scenario proposition. The best tool for the job is the one that's available. To intentionally misquote Arthur Weasley: "What exactly is the purpose of a rubber duck?"