alt Hacker News> Safeguards have improved drastically since then
Source? Seriously. I'd love to see data showing deaths–or even frequencies–have dropped. My views on AI for under-16s is still evolving.
Given how the AI companies are fighting these cases in court, and given their backers’ public rhetoric, I suspect they aren't seeing a one-off risk.
> Cars harm kids
This is tobacco-industry rhetoric. The relevant facts are frequency, magnitude and novelty (the last indicating we may be mis-sampling the first two).
> FDA exists to make sure food doesn't harm kids
Mm hmm. Where’s the FDA for AI and social media?
> worth acknowledging the edge cases, but it's absurd to act like the AI companies are some unique evil
I agree with this. AI isn't a unique evil. But AI companies are uniquely defensive, dismissive and negligent when it comes to harming kids. Call it the Mosseri Effect. When an industry continuously promotes people who predate on kids and their parents' wallets, the edge cases are going to wind up inside the lines.
Replies
I think the idea is that the chances of an LLM causing death or irreparable harm to a consistently unsupervised kid are too low to be comparable with major sources of harm (like cars) and are rather on or below the level of random casual accidents, like choking or falling, where we normally start to get practical (rather than extra cautious) about the safeguards.
If true (quite probable; there aren't that many reported cases that I found-less than 40, all-time, worldwide), then we can't meaningfully distinguish between willful negligence on Anthropic's side and a "shit can happen for any reason" class situation. Especially considering those accidents seem to tend to involve various mental health issues, particularly including preexisting suicidal ideations as a comorbidity. Probably fewer than there are cases of other bona fide people talking kids into harm (verbal abuse, dares, etc.).
And if so, I guess ethics suggests that we shouldn't assume unproven malice in such a case unless there's proof of actual intent. A suspicion is not entirely without basis, but "hurting kids for profit" feels too provocative in its implications, to the extent it starts to feel misleading.
>> Cars harm kids
> This is tobacco-industry rhetoric. The relevant facts are frequency, magnitude and novelty
Cars are literally the number one killer of children 0-14 in the United States. More than cancer, more than guns, more than the next 7 reasons combined.
> But AI companies are uniquely defensive, dismissive and negligent when it comes to harming kids.
You should see how people feel if you ask them to give up some street parking to make streets safer for kids and everybody else! Jesus Christ himself gave them the spot in front of their house and fuck you for suggesting they park across the street or on their own property!