This is quite literally the norm for things with known dangerous use cases.

Go look at the package on a kitchen knife and it says not to be used as a weapon

Wowfunhappy 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Playing devil's advocate: if I did in fact grab one of my kitchen knives to defend myself against a violent intruder into my kitchen, I wouldn't expect to be banned from buying kitchen knives.

I'm not sure this is still a useful analogy, though...

▲

dwattttt 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And if you grabbed the knife and went on a violent spree, I'd absolutely expect the knife manufacturer to refuse to sell to you anymore.

The knife manufacturer isn't obligated to sell to you in either case, I'd expect them not to cut ties with you in the self defence scenario. But it is their choice.

▲

zephen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The knife manufacturer would be more than happy to continue to sell to you, except for that minor little detail that you're in jail.

▲

gpm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Any knife vendor who

1. Found out you used their knives to go murdering

2. Sells knives in a fashion where it's possible for them to prevent you from buying their knives (i.e. direct to consumer sales)

Would almost certainly not "be more than happy to continue to sell to you". Even if we ignore the fact that most people are simply against assisting in murders (which by itself is a sufficient justification in most companies), the bad PR (see the "found out" and "direct to consumer" part) would make you a hugely unprofitable customer.

▲

zephen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Meh. Not sure why knife dealers would be assumed to be more moral than firearms dealers. See, e.g. Delana v. CED Sales (Missouri)

> the bad PR (see the "found out" and "direct to consumer" part) would make you a hugely unprofitable customer.

That... Doesn't happen.

Boycotts by people who weren't going to buy your product anyway are immaterial to business. The inevitable lawsuits are costly, but are generally thought of as good publicity, because they keep the business name in the news.

	▲	gpm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		People who buy luxury kitchen knives are exactly the type of people who would choose not to buy a product because it is associated with crime. People who buy (and make) firearms are... pretty close to the exact opposite.

▲

Loughla 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I shoot someone, something that is explicitly warned against in firearm safety materials that come with every purchase of a new firearm, I am no longer allowed to purchase any more firearms.

	▲	SauntSolaire 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There are many situations in which you can shoot someone and still be allowed to buy a gun. Also, in the cases you can't, it's generally the government stopping you, not the gun companies.
	▲	Wowfunhappy 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's for a different reason though--you broke the law.

▲

moron4hire 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The specific shape of a kitchen knife would make it a particularly poor fighting knife, and knives in general are bad for self defense, due to the potential for it to be turned against the user. So, there is a good argument that such a suggestion is really in the user's best interest rather than a cynical play for the manufacturer to limit liability.

▲

charcircuit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No it isn't. There are warnings, but once a knife is yours you are free to do whatever you want with it, including reselling it to someone else. The idea of terms of service of using something is not something that typically exists with physical objects that one can own. They can't take your knife away from you because you decided to use it for a medical purpose without purchasing a medical license for the knife.

▲

medi8r 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These knife and lead analogies don't map well to the reality of AI. Note: just talking about the analogy itself not the point you are making.

Edit: hell I get downvoted and look where the knife analogy got us. A load of weird replies miles away from anything related to AI or DoD.

▲

MeetingsBrowser 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. I hoped people would get my point, but instead are arguing about gun laws for some reason?

▲

SauntSolaire 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You should give it longer than an hour before you start complaining about downvotes. Or just let your comment stand on it's own.

	▲	rezonant 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Seconded. You can't see all the up and down votes, only the balance at the moment you look, and it's not too uncommon to be negative or even dead and be upped or vouched back to life later.