|
| ▲ | StilesCrisis 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive. |
|
| ▲ | BeetleB 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. 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). |
|
| ▲ | pton_xd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot. |
| |
| ▲ | chrisco255 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns. | |
| ▲ | vorticalbox 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended. |
|
|
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose 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 |
| |
| ▲ | RoddaWallPro 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training. 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. |
|
|
