> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.

What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. In general, text based interfaces don't light up the brain in the same way. Psychologically it's a lot easier to walk away from a chatbot vs an infinite feed of short form video... potentially that difference could help find some kind of standard to determine addictiveness

Edit: I wonder if a hypothetical digital experience like the samizdat out of infinite jest is possible? I.e. a digital experience which hits the brain in the perfect way to produce addiction without a chemical basis

▲

ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that.

If you as a person engage with a product to a degree where it causes demonstrable, measurable harm to yourself or your life, you are addicted.

▲

matrix87 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? I think what matters is the intent of the design. E.g. if they design the product to make you need more of it (while it has an actively detrimental effect)

▲

ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw?

If you repeatedly willingly do so despite the harm, then yes.

▲

philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But you still did it. If I sunbathe every day without sun cream, whom do we regulate? Assuming people have no ability to choose.

▲

blackqueeriroh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You have moved the goalpost.

	▲	UpsideDownRide 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Stop using buzzwords instead of engaging in a discussion. Someone clarifying their position is not necessairly moving goalposts, they might have just not laid out fully their idea in the first place.