Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Maybe it's causing even more deaths than we know, and these doesn't make the news either?

If we think this way, then we don't need to improve safety of anything (cars, trains, planes, ships, etc.) because we would need the big picture, though... maybe these vehicles cause death (which is awful), but it's also transporting people to their destinations alive. If there are that many people using these, I wouldn't be surprised if these actually transports some people with comfort, and that's not going to make the news.



> Maybe it's causing even more deaths than we know, and these doesn't make the news either?

Of course, and that's part of why I say that we need to measure the impact. It could be net positive or negative, we won't know if we don't find out.

> If we think this way, then we don't need to improve safety of anything (cars, trains, planes, ships, etc.) because we would need the big picture, though... maybe these vehicles cause death (which is awful), but it's also transporting people to their destinations alive. If there are that many people using these, I wouldn't be surprised if these actually transports some people with comfort, and that's not going to make the news.

I'm not advocating for not improving security, I'm arguing against a comment that said that "ChatGPT should be nowhere near anyone dealing with psychological issues", because it can cause death.

Following your analogy, cars objectively cause deaths (and not only of people with psychological issues, but of people in general) and we don't say that "they should be nowhere near a person". We improve their safety even though zero deaths is probably impossible, which we accept because they are useful. This is a big-picture approach.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: