* a box of matches
* a handgun
* an assault rifle
* a 50 cal BMG
* an ICBM with nuclear MIRV
Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.
I guess I can be nonchalant about this topic. For me personally I cannot imagine something worse than either books or anything you can already access on the internet. To me it is not an assault rifle as you say, but I understand that's just an opinion.
Is that true? Can a 13 year old child in Italy not walk into their local town library and pick a novel off the shelf and start reading all sorts of violent and explicit narratives? Not to mention all the medical textbooks, and books containing images of artistic works depicting undressed humans.
I disagree it's easy to block the internet in general, but I get the point (I think).
Parents can try to block chatgpt with a firewall if they wish. It’s no less likely to work than blocking other internet sites.
Edit: Also, LLMs do have mandatory parental controls. They work about as well as book censorship, safe search or internet blacklists (very, very poorly).
These tools exist where a non technical user can install it in their own network and block websites by URL. I don't know what else is needed, since you acknowledge this already exists.
What kind of dystopian library do you go to? Kids can get what they like where I am.
It’s mostly self checkouts, so yes, if the library has the book. They wouldn’t have porn magazines.
Or they can read it there, or they can take it to the counter and get it out via the librarian.
There are also computers for use, though I assume they have filters/blockers/restrictions.
I think we had very similar argument when posted showed a tool that could approximate users based on their writing style and more recently copying voice based on 20 seconds. We can estimate risk. We don't get it right consistently though.
That the difference didn’t matter is my opinion and that is just disagreement. Determining what ballpark something is in wrt damage is, in our context, subjective, no? I did not think what you argued (or what I thought you argued) was impossible or unimaginable. That is different from incredulity. Right? I don’t care either way, honestly curious. You may enlighten me if you wish.
It seems silly to be able to say to everyone that disagrees on an assumption you made that they are making an argument from incredulity.
This is simply not on the scale of dangerous things - if something exposes minors to answers unsuitable to their degree of development, well, that's completely fine. With this particular argument there's no tradeoff of "is it justified to do X to protect against the bad thing Y" because in this case Y is zero, preventing this justifies literally nothing.
If parents want to disallow their kids from reading "unsuitable answers", that's between the parents and the kids, but it doesn't imply that "unsuitable answers" should be somehow limited.
[Edit: the ICBM was edited into the comment after the fact.]
There is no current plausible evident mapping from the example, to any LLM-powered service currently on offer, leastwise in Italian.