Comment by embedding-shape
3 hours ago
They're calling for "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" which regardless of what happened before, sounds like a reasonable thing to do, you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this.
I still don't see where the whole "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" comes in, so because this person was personally affected, they shouldn't reach the conclusion that AI companies need to be held responsible for whatever effects they have?
"you don't even need to try to look at any correlation or causation to arrive at this"
You actually very much do. If there is no causation, then it is not "their impact". Otherwise, you're just advocating for rope-makers to be punished for wrong-use of their product. Which is, of course, foolish.
Ok, put another way, do you think we clearly know exactly the pros and cons for individuals to use AI chatbots for mental health treatment?
If you don't clearly know exactly those things, wanting anything else than "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" as a first step would be utterly foolish and de-humanizing.
Using uncertainty to punish your perceived enemies is called "injustice".