Comment by fc417fc802
2 days ago
Right but in this case your co-worker is an automaton and someone else who might well have a hidden agenda has tweaked your co-worker to leave conversations under specific circumstances.
The analogy then is that the third party is exerting control over what your co-worker is allowed to think.
Yes, the co-worker is a robot created by a third party who retain control over their product.
We live in a world where it has become increasingly possible--by a number of different mechanisms--to rent access to things rather than sell them, and we need to step in and better regulate that: if I pay for your product, you don't get to control it anymore, you don't get to watch how I use it, and you don't get any say in if or how I modify it while I am using it. The idea that it is more profitable to rent people a calculator than to sell them one is simultaneously true and horrifying, as the reasons it is more profitable are all bad for the user. If your service is a thing that can't be sold, it should be designed in a way where you can't continue to access it from the inside, no more so than you are allowed to rent me an apartment and leave a bunch of cameras inside it.
Is the creator of the product material to the analogy? The point is that for any who seek power manipulating a widely used AI product can provide far more control than other approaches.