Hard disagree on this. The gap between the levels of statistical significance you get in economics vs physics is massive. They're not at the same levels of inevitability. The predictive power of the laws of physics vs the laws of economics is vastly different.
So people that look to chatgpt for answers and help (as they've been programmed to do with all the marketing and capabilities from openai) should just die because they looked to chatgpt for an answer instead of google or their local suicide helpline? That doesn't seem reasonable, but it sounds to me like what you're saying.
> So did the user. If he didn't want to talk to a chatbot he could have stopped at any time.
This sounds similar to when people tell depressed people, just stop being sad.
IMO if a company is going to claim and release some pretty disruptive and unexplored capabilities through their product, they should at least have to make it safe. You put a safety railing because people could trip or slip. I don't think a mistake that small should be end in death.
Let's flip the hypothetical -- if someone googles for suicide info and scrolls past the hotline info and ends up killing themselves anyway, should google be on the hook?
I don't know this for sure, but also I'm fairly sure that google make a concerted effort to not expose that information. Again, from experience. It's very hard to google a painless way to kill yourself.
Their SEO ranking actually ranks pages about suicide prevention very high.
The solution that is going to be found, is they will put some age controls, probably half-heartedly, and call it a day. I don't think the public can stomach the possible free speech limitations on consenting adults to use a dangerous tool that might cause them to hurt themselves.
The thing about depression and suicidal thoughts is that they lie to you that things will never get better than where they are right now.
So someone wanting to die at any given moment, might not feel that way at any given moment in the future. I know I wouldn’t want any of my family members to make such a permanent choice to temporary problems.
1000% As I said in my comment. I never thought I'd be better. I am. I am happy and I live a worthwhile life.
In the throws of intense depression it's hard to even wake up. The idea that I was acting in my right mind, and was able to make a decision like that is insane to me.
If someone wants to look for their lost cat in a snowstorm should they be able to make that decision even if they could regret it in the future due to health reasons of going out in the cold to save their cat? I believe they should be able to make that decision for themselves. It's not the responsibility of your door manufacter to deny you the ability to go outside because it knows better than you and it is too dangerous.
You are out of your mind if you think people can reliably tell what they want. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Telling the difference is hard, but it's pretty clear that they can't when they suffer from the serious mental condition called depression.
During a lifetime, your perspective and world view will change completely - multiple times. Young people have no idea, because they haven't had the chance to experience it yet.
Maybe the fix to home invasion burglaries isn't increased surveillance but actually helping people? We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
This sounds like a "first they came for the socialists..." moment. Where we might not feel oppressed with the increased surveillance but as we go further and further into the surveillance state, eventually we'll be the ones that are pushed into a bad situation where a surveillance state is used against us.
> We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
They are not _justifying_ it, they are calling out a cause/effect relationship. When people are desperate, they do destructive things. And our society is doing things that increase the number of desperate people.
You have to be more specific about the "bad situation" imo.
A lot of crime gets blamed on all kinds of causes, but with a cause so vague all kinds of counterfactuals can be listed out: poverty doesn't explain why countries with more surveillance and more poverty have less crime like home invasions (CCCP).
The system that is killing our planet, that exploits and ends up killing the majority of its unwilling participants? Yeah, I don't think the loss in productivity will be a bad thing. Maybe people will consider the effect of their work before doing it a little more when they don't have a gun to their head.
Did you read the article? Because it says that about half of the ones that stopped working stopped working because they were going back to school. That doesn't seem like a drain on the system...
That's not that much better - 12.5% stopped working and didn't do anything at all.
I think that would also massively increase if the money was guaranteed to keep coming in for the rest of their lives. And even if the percentage stayed flat it would be an economic disaster - an increase of 12.5% of the population unemployed would be worse, in the US, than peak COVID. Another 12.5% going off to school still gets them out of the workforce, and would worsen elite overproduction.
Itô is the name of the type of calculus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%C3%B4_calculus) and calculare I think is just the plural of calculus. So something like "all the itô calculus are notable examples of fairly high level mathematics ..."
The plural of calculus is calculi or calculuses. Calculare might be an autocorrection for a different language (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/calculare), though given that the author has a Korean name, it’s more likely just a weird typo.
That makes so much more sense! Although the pedant in me wants to argue that calculus plural is “calculi”/“calculuses” (the dictionary gives me the latter, although I’ve never seen it in the wild myself—-but I won’t pursue that because it’s beside the point!) Thanks for the help!
My only hope for climate change is that insurance companies start lobbying to have a more predictable environment since risk models works better when things aren't chaotic, and that gives a monetary incentice for companies to do better
agreed, not to mention that there's things that just can't be expressed. Speaking as someone fluent in spanish and english there's nuance to some things that don't really translate well.
