[JumpCrisscross]

> you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way

I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.

[micromacrofoot]

You're still bristling at the core concept by softening it again. Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose

Original, not primary. At least in America, most guns are not purchased with an intention to kill anything–they're for training. Trying to conclude the morality of a thing from its historic purpose is a bit silly. Particularly within the frame of a novel technology like AI.

[micromacrofoot]

Training for what?

[parineum]

Staying alive in dangerous situations.

[micromacrofoot]

based on the numbers in the US, they may be training for suicide

[echoangle]

By allowing you to do what?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Training for what?

In the military, killing or disabling. In most other contexts, sport. You're broadly not going to know what someone aims to do with a gun solely from knowing that it is a gun.

Guns are obviously more dangerous than LLMs. But it's total nonsense to conclude LLMs are safe because they might have been originally intended to be so. Plenty of things that today have zero utility outside the military were originally invented for peaceful aims.