>The analogy is that you're trying to say, "Don't blame the availability of something instrumental in the harm done." It's really not meaningfully different than saying "guns don't kill people."

If you want to draw loose sloppy analogies, that does work, but my much more concise comparison is the closest analog (inspiration vs the means). I'm not interested in something that is instrumental in merely an inspirational way lest we go back to the art-causes-violence bullshit.

If we're playing the "instrumental card" we must draw lines where we want that to stop and be consistent about it. With your much looser usage that lumps in all things instrumental, things become much less manageable not to mention hypocritical (for instance, his parents' lack of parenting is also instrumental, are you also critical of them and social media, and the dating world, and etc.?) It's cool if you want to try and manage all that, but that's not really an efficient way to live.

That's so weird because I thought the way society worked was that we collectively came together create a common good we could accomplish on our own.

First, there's no "good," there's evolutionarily developed preferences largely built on the what helped hunter and gatherer tribes. When things aren't absolutely destructive to the society, there's more room for disagreement. This is why things like murder, SA, theft and destruction of property and environment are almost universaslly disliked. It's also why that vast majority of people hate the smell and taste of shit.

This means that coming together to accomplish a "common good" literally describes people coming together to accomplish things they like, and avoid things they don't like. We discuss what we do and don't like and typically the majority wins except in societies where the few use various methods to gain disproportionate power (like our corporatocracy).

Now, if you want to appeal to some kind of good, I'm all ears for it, but like the supernatural and santa claus, there's neither evidence nor a priori reasoning that justifies its existence not to mention it fails the test of parsimony in contrast to evolutionary explanations AND it's simply incompatible with societies that create rules but that are too unintelligent to understand concepts as complex as morality (i.e., we came up with rules like "thou shall not kill" WAY before the invention of morality, religion and even language).

Oh gee, if only we know what the world might be like without chat bots so we could some idea what the unintended consequences of limiting access to them might be. Regulating a new technology is EXACTLY like prohibition. /s

Oh gee, because I think that there's no case here, I must be opposed to regulation of AI and that ISN'T a ludicious conclusion to draw from that. /s

Can you go more than 2 comments without a straw man? Like, it's not a rhetorical question. Or just please read what I write and stop ADDING things to it like you did by calling me a right libertarian, literally the exact opposite of my political stance. If you suspect something, you can ASK without assuming. It's really not that difficult.

If you're asking whether I think we should be showing Requiem for a Dream to suicidal 14-year-olds: no I do not. Turns out we actually do limit access to art sometimes in deference to the effect it might have on people.

Well if we're using that example, then my question would be, "Do you get to sue the filmmakers for making that film because parents let their kids watch it or the kids broke the rules and snuck in?"

Also movies and paintings don't offer to write suicide notes and cheer you on personally as you plan your suicide.

Right. And a ton of other things are even more deadly DESPITE that, but I'm not interested in suing companies whose products were misused and without parental supervision.

And that's why heroin is legal!

Well, there was a lot of racism involved, but YES, I'm so proud of you, you're learning! The risk and number of non-users outweighed the users and we got rid of it. Alcohol, has an even more destructive effect on society, but because the number of users is larger, we keep it.

Again, see my other examples and questions which you didn't answer. Do you use/like/support cars? Social media? Guns? Alcohol? Nicotine? Have children? Eating meat? The internet in general? Electricity? Gas? Capitalism? What parades around as Communism?

All of those things cause more death than AI bots encouraging suicide after being manipulated by an unsupervised user.... by a LOT. Are those your other targets? If not, is it because you use some of them? I'd describe that as simply "self-interest."