[lynx23]

So, if you drink and drive and kill a child, is it your responsibility, or is it the fault of alcohol being legal or vehicles not being mandates safe enough? This modern way of dealing with moral hazards is making me sad and afraid of others. After all, who knows whom they are going to blame for their own inability to perform sensible actions?

[alexey-salmin]

More like if you drink and then take paracetamol for the headache, the pharma corporation should warn you against performing this seemingly sensible action.

[Ferret7446]

Mixing drugs is not sensible. Anyone who does so without checking for side effects is at fault.

The bottle being labeled is sufficient, just as the LLM being labeled as sometimes wrong is sufficient.

[alexey-salmin]

> The bottle being labeled is sufficient, just as the LLM being labeled as sometimes wrong is sufficient.

Labeling LLMs as "sometime wrong" is like labeling drugs as "sometimes have side effects, especially when mixing". It's a truism, such label would be completely useless. You need to take the drug anyway, so knowing that "some side effects exist" doesn't change anything. And often you also do need to take 2-3-4 drugs at same time, so the mixing clause is not helping either.

It took us many decades to build the system around drugs that today you take as granted. Drugs are studied very carefully, with all observed side effects listed explicitly. Drugs compatibility is a big topic and all new drugs are checked in combination with common-use drugs.

At the other end of equation awareness of side effects and mixing was increased dramatically both among doctors and patients, who were previously completely oblivious of them. Mere 100 years ago people were prescribed heroin against cough. Only 60 years ago the thalidomide disaster happened.

If all you can say to people destroyed by Kevadon is "you are at fault, the bottle said CAUTION: new drug", then I'm afraid we see this too differently.