> It's just that the user fundamentally cannot provide informed consent

The user is an adult. They are capable of consenting to whatever they want, no matter how irrational it may look to you.

▲

hypfer 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Uh, yes?

What does that refute?

▲

Wowfunhappy 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You just said the user is incapable of providing informed consent.

In any context, I really dislike software that prevents me from doing something dangerous in order to "protect" me. That's how we get iOS.

The user is an adult, they can consent to this if they want to. If Anthropic is using dark patterns to trick them that's a different story--that wouldn't be informed consent--but I don't think that's happening here?

	▲	hypfer 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is not about if people should be allowed to harm themselves though. Legally, yes. Yes, everyone can do that. The question though is if that is a good thing. Do we just want to look away when large orgs benefit from people not realizing that they're doing self-harm? Do we want to ignore the larger societal implications of this? If you want to delete your rootfs, be my guest. I just won't be cheering for a corp that tells you that you're brilliant and absolutely right for doing so. I believe it's a bad thing to frame this as a conflict between individual freedom and protecting the weak(est) parts of society. I don't think that anything good can come out of seeing the world that way.