You may be correct about the language not necessarily inviting very thoughtful discussion. But I didn't exactly expect one, when I engaged with someone who merely "skimmed" the article and put out an incredibly nuanced, though-provoking and discussion-inviting take like "mentally ill people, am I right?" and "this article is silly".

I'm throwing back what you put out. You don't get to claim that you wanted a thoughtful discussion when you open the discussion the way you did.

You claim you have "never argued against safety measures," yet your original comment literally called the article "silly" for merely leading readers to perhaps come to the conclusion that regulation of these technologies might be a sensible step.

You keep asking for "more research" despite the article citing multiple studies. How many more studies would you like to see? What's the acceptable death count before we move on from "early data" to "maybe we should do something"? Or, more importantly, is there genuinely any number of studies that would actually convince you that regulation would be prudent? Because, please correct me if I'm wrong, you don't seem like the type who would welcome any sort of regulation, for any reason.

Your "what led them to be vulnerable" question is particularly revealing. Nobody claimed ChatGPT creates mental illness from scratch. The issue is that it's actively harmful to vulnerable people. Food doesn't create nut allergies, but we still put "may contain traces of nuts" on food labels. We don't need to ask "why do people develop nut allergies" to recognize that nuts are causing them to go into anaphylactic shock, and they should be informed if a product is potentially going to kill them.

You say we should "hold all tools and technologies to the same standard" - but we do. That's literally what regulation IS. You're arguing for the outcome while opposing the mechanism. We regulate pharmaceuticals, medical devices, therapy practices, and yes, even social media platforms when they cause documented harm. There is a reason why children under 13 are not allowed to sign up to social media in the US.

The "complex issue" framing is a deflection here, just as it is with climate change denial. It's an appeal to the status-quo. To not change something that is fundamentally broken because it would inconvenience you, or the business' bottom line. Guess we'll have to keep drilling for oil, keep burning fossil fuels and let ChatGPT teach people how to kill themselves, ah well. Complexity doesn't preclude basic safety measures, like a simple warning label.

You want "transparency and better safeguards"? Cool. Me too. How do you propose to make it happen? Self-regulation famously worked great for big tobacco, so I'm sure it'll work great in this case.

PS: I love the motte-and-bailey retreat from "severe mental health issues" to "some sort of issue" to a vague "vulnerable". PPS: How did you like the tone of this one? Better?