I understand that and I agree the approach under these assumptions must be needs-based. I’m saying, that it’s worth examining how much of this new phenomena is needs-not-met vs falling prey to a new kind of profit-driven entertainment. I have no idea what the numbers are. Could be mostly unmet need. It’s not necessarily following the same dybamics as drug use.
How many people have decided not to kill themselves because they talked to an AI instead of nobody?
How many people have been so busy talking to an AI that they weren’t online to see others on Facebook attempting to cyberbully them?
You will never be successful in trying to make illegal an action that people see as a need.
If you are banning things people see as needs, that’s not governance. That’s cruelty.
Focus on making sure people’s needs are met, and start in childhood. People will stop reaching for alternatives.
How many people have been goaded into killing themselves due to talking to AI?
How many people have been talked out of killing themselves due to talking to AI?
How many people will be killed by people who have driven themselves into psychosis talking to AI?
I understand that and I agree the approach under these assumptions must be needs-based. I’m saying, that it’s worth examining how much of this new phenomena is needs-not-met vs falling prey to a new kind of profit-driven entertainment. I have no idea what the numbers are. Could be mostly unmet need. It’s not necessarily following the same dybamics as drug use.