• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 minutes ago

    The line between medical advice and personal research is pretty freaking gray, so banning medical advice. Does that also ban talking to llms about anything that is medical adjacent?

    Does medical adjacent mean personal disabilities? Drug related interests? Pet health? Stretches? Pain support?

    Anything that falls under “Health, Wellness, and Fitness”?

    …etc

    It’s a slippery slope and we don’t need to be sliding down it

    • moroninahurry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      People are so vicious over this tech they would rather have disabled poor people with cancer suffer and die under inadequate care than do anything about the inadequate care. Ban the tech, but let this all go on.

      If you are perfectly able and well, you can ignore all advice that isn’t perfect.

      The perspective they seem to lack is frightening. The empathy they refuse to engage is massive. This is able-ism.

      Tech companies are bad, but use of tech will cure and ease cancer, HIV, and chronic disease. Bring on the downvotes.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        “Would rather have disabled people with cancer suffer and die…”

        My guy, that’s not a lack of LLM access, it’s a completely fucked US healthcare system that forces people onto the internet because they can’t get what they need from the state, you goofy-ass weirdo.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 minutes ago

          Well yes of course but also restricting access to information machines doesn’t exactly help much either.