In what world should an AI be advocating someone kill themselves or harm another? Does it matter "trial-and-error prompting" when that behavior should not be allowed to be productized?
I'm beginning to think that children should not be using it but adults should be able to decide for themselves.
Second, restricting adult access to "dangerous ideas and information" is a slippery slope. The exercise of speech and press that the British considered to be treasonous preceded the American Revolution.
How are we going to hold AI liable for their part in causing a crime to be committed? If we cannot prevent AI from causing crime them AI must be illegal.
Everything it says is meaningless unless you assign meaning to it. Yes, I can see children thinking this is a real "being". Adults shouldn't have that excuse.
words have weight, it’s why we protect them so vociferously. we don’t protect them because they’re useless. we protect them because words matter, a lot.
A real person has agency. They can see you, get to know you, contemplate your existence as well their own. Empathize with who you are, etc. And we do the same things in return.
This is why when a real person says something mean or hurtful, it matters to us. Or if they threaten us, they have a real body that can cause us harm so we get scared and call the police.
I feel like most people who get indignant about the latest AI rage bait story know all this but feel the need to protect the rest of the world from out of control AI. This is an elitist and patronizing attitude. Let people decide for themselves. As I said, children are a different story. They are impressionable and I can see them misunderstanding how this works.
A world in which a reasonable adult would say the same?
Not really the case here, but I don’t think it’s an absolute.