It kind of puts today’s massive chatbot censorship into context, and self-driving cars as well. They have to prevent even one person from using the product and then dying.
For the record I think “the correct number of people to die as a result of technological progress is not zero”. My issue is that the correct number is not “all of the people”.
I’m a bit confused, I was mainly thinking about getting inside the heads of the devs and executives/lawyers who work on the implementing the prudishness of public chatbots.
Ah, that’s helpful, that was my bad. I was definitely being descriptive, about legal dynamics and stuff. With the internet being what it is, I’ll be more cautious about vague language in the future.
It kind of puts today’s massive chatbot censorship into context, and self-driving cars as well. They have to prevent even one person from using the product and then dying.
For the record I think “the correct number of people to die as a result of technological progress is not zero”. My issue is that the correct number is not “all of the people”.
I’m a bit confused, I was mainly thinking about getting inside the heads of the devs and executives/lawyers who work on the implementing the prudishness of public chatbots.
Gotcha, I was unclear about whether you were saying it prescriptively or descriptively.
Ah, that’s helpful, that was my bad. I was definitely being descriptive, about legal dynamics and stuff. With the internet being what it is, I’ll be more cautious about vague language in the future.