What about the polo player's genome?

"Ten scenarios that I invented in which AI is making my life miserable."

Yeah that sure would be a crazy thing to say. I would hate if someone said that!

Did you make a compilation of everything they publicly said for ten years, in order to check whether your statement is correct?

That is a deeply unserious question. I have a hard time believing you've asked it in good faith.

So, you didn't? Instead of a compilation, did you do a quick check?

Unless you donated all the money you earned this year to foreign children, you are equally to blame for this "Holodomor."

Are you against murder ?

An innocent man was shot and killed this year in a foreign country. Unless you did everything in your power to stop that killing, you are equally to blame for his murder.

Not every conversation is about Trump, is it possible to stop this?

I think the whole world would like to stop talking about Trump.

He got elected, get over it.

World doesn't seem over it yet. Like Brexit and plenty of other poor choices the various electorates of the world have previously done.

More to the point, "it" is not the fact of his election but the fact of his policy decisions, which are ongoing. Of course the world is still talking about that.

It's your point of view that those were bad choices. Why pretend otherwise?

dead people, historically, lack a POV

Well, you're hearing people talk about them still for a reason buddy. Nobody talks about good news.

And that is why he is talked about - because he is massively damaging powerful presence. And yes people who voted for him looked forwards to have fun watching the damage.

Trump was always attention sucking drama queen. So yes, voting for him is a vote to have Trump in news worldwide.

I don't think AI changed anything at all to the possibility of communicating between humans. This is a job that you've always been able to do alone in your cave.

Really? How do you learn how to code with out communicating with another human? Which man pages in a general Linux install will teach you all you need to know? Without communication you get no books, no StackOverflow, no-LLMs even. You were allowed to do it alone but we can't pretend humans communicating isn't how most of the available knowledge for your perusal came to be.

Overly generalizing the notion of "communication" makes this whole exchange useless, pure noise. A LLM wouldn't have made that mistake.

What? No one over generalized communication you just got caught expressing something blatantly untrue.

It has. Some utter morons seem to run everything they receive and send through it at work.

I have a spreadsheet now of people I can't be fucked with.

European tech is often atrocious. Every single digital government program in France has been hacked, every social security number is out there, physical addresses tied to crypto wallets, etc.

Explicit accusation that this was caused by chatbots + call for general regulation is right there in the article:

"AFP spoke to several members about their experiences. All warned that the world has to wake up to the threat unregulated AI chatbots pose to mental health.

Questions are also being asked about whether AI companies are doing enough to protect vulnerable people."

This, in time, might be used to nerf the models that we use. Of course, one actor is singled out:

"There has also been a recent rise in people spiralling while using Elon Musk's xAI's Grok chatbot, he said."

I don't think "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" even makes sense to someone saying "Maybe AI chatbots aren't great for people's mental health" or even "Are the AI companies actually trying to prevent AI chatbots being bad for people's mental health?", both statements seem fine and doesn't imply any causation as far as I understand.

This cautious statement, which would indeed be fine, is an invention of yours when it comes to the article. They assert causation, calling for AI companies to be disciplined and punished, praising the EU online censorship campaign, arguing this is a big experiment:

"Millar called for AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots, saying the European Union has been more assertive in regulating Big Tech than the US or Canada.

He believes spirallers like him have unwittingly been caught in a massive global experiment."

They're calling for "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" which regardless of what happened before, sounds like a reasonable thing to do, you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this.

I still don't see where the whole "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" comes in, so because this person was personally affected, they shouldn't reach the conclusion that AI companies need to be held responsible for whatever effects they have?

"you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this"

You actually very much do. If there is no causation, then it is not "their impact". Otherwise, you're just advocating for rope-makers to be punished for wrong-use of their product. Which is, of course, foolish.

Ok, put another way, do you think we clearly know exactly the pros and cons for individuals to use AI chatbots for mental health treatment?

If you don't clearly know exactly those things, wanting anything else than "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" as a first step would be utterly foolish and de-humanizing.

> "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots"

Sure, but people on HN have a weird idea of what "held responsible" means. Often it seems to mean "harshly punished", as opposed to making the injured parties whole.

This probably reflects a split between US culture and the rest of the Western world.

Using uncertainty to punish your perceived enemies is called "injustice".

No, figuring out harms is called "thinking before acting", and unless you want laws and regulations written in blood (something I personally want to avoid), you need to think before acting.

Figuring out what harms something in wide use has, is a good thing, and doesn't mean "ban it today", it means "lets figure it out".

Language this vague has a name: it's called "bullshit".

Reminds me of another slang, probably applicable to this entire discussion: "pointless"