I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.
guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped
you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal
whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
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.
And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either.
And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.
I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing.
The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).
