Society can't be built with the idea that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals.
We build cars, even though some alcoholics drive drunk. We could make cars safer for them by mandating a steering wheel lock with breathalazyer for every car, but we choose to not do that because it's expensive.
We have horror movies, even though some people really freak out from watching horror movies, to the point where they have to be placed in mental asylums for extended periods of time. We could outlaw horror movies to reduce the strain on these mentally troubled individuals, but we choose to not do that because horror movies are cool.
> Society can't be built with the idea that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals.
That's a far cry from saying the sellers are free from any responsibility.
Cars are highly engineered AND regulated because they have a tendency to kill their operators and pedestrians. It does cost more, but you're not allowed to sell a car that can't pass safety standards.
OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.
> Cars are highly engineered AND regulated because they have a tendency to kill their operators and pedestrians. It does cost more, but you're not allowed to sell a car that can't pass safety standards.
But you are allowed to sell a car without a mechanical steering wheel lock connected to a breathalyzer. Remember, this discussion isn't about "should technology be made safe for the average person", this discussion is about "should technology be made safe for the most vulnerable amongst us". In the context of cars, alcoholics are definitely within this "most vulnerable" group. And yet, car safety standards do not require engine startup to check for a breathalyzer result.
> OpenAI have created a shiny new tool with no regulation. Great! It can drive progress or cause harm. I think they deserve credit for both.
I didn't make an argument for "no regulation", so this is not really related to anything I said.
Maybe so. But we still have to draw the line somewhere. You can always point to the next costly car safety innovation and say that mandating that thing would improve safety.
>Society can't be built with the idea that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals.
But it is, nearly every product, procedure, process is aimed at the lowest common denominator, it's the entire reasoning warning labels exist, or fail safe systems (like airbags) exist.
If every product or process was truly aimed at the lowest common denominator, then we wouldn't have warning labels on hot coffee, we would instead have medium-heated coffee.
My point is that hot coffee is still being sold everywhere, even though we know for a fact that it's dangerous for our most vulnerable individuals. Mentally unstable people will sometimes spill coffee and when the coffee is hot it causes burns. If we really wanted to make coffee safe for our most vulnerable individuals, we would outlaw hot coffee, and just have medium-heated coffee instead. So the existence of "warning labels on hot coffee" is really evidence for my point, not evidence for your point.
then you would agree that warning labels are the lowest common denominator solution to a well known fact, vis-a-vis all processes, products, & procedures are aimed at the lowest factor.
I don't know what that sentence means. But I know it doesn't mean "warning labels solve the problem that everything has to work for the most troubled and challenging individuals", which is what this discussion was about at least a few messages ago.
We build cars, even though some alcoholics drive drunk. We could make cars safer for them by mandating a steering wheel lock with breathalazyer for every car, but we choose to not do that because it's expensive.
We have horror movies, even though some people really freak out from watching horror movies, to the point where they have to be placed in mental asylums for extended periods of time. We could outlaw horror movies to reduce the strain on these mentally troubled individuals, but we choose to not do that because horror movies are cool.