This is an appropriate response for something like a chainsaw or cigarettes, but it is not appropriate to describe chatgpt’s relationship to consumers.
For most of society, your conclusion works; parents should indeed play an intermediary role between their toddler and a fire. But fire does not deceive the user in its potential to danger. It doesn’t seek to glaze the user with compliments and hollow cheeriness.
ChatGPT is not fire. It leads people who can’t make the distinction between various technologies and their own personal data or digital identity into false narratives pretty easily.
I’m not sure where exactly you hoped your argument would land, because the logical conclusion to it is that you don’t really care that a person was convinced by chatgpt to kill themselves, which would have been clearer to point out than a contrived toddler argument.
This is an appropriate response for something like a chainsaw or cigarettes, but it is not appropriate to describe chatgpt’s relationship to consumers.
For most of society, your conclusion works; parents should indeed play an intermediary role between their toddler and a fire. But fire does not deceive the user in its potential to danger. It doesn’t seek to glaze the user with compliments and hollow cheeriness.
ChatGPT is not fire. It leads people who can’t make the distinction between various technologies and their own personal data or digital identity into false narratives pretty easily.
I’m not sure where exactly you hoped your argument would land, because the logical conclusion to it is that you don’t really care that a person was convinced by chatgpt to kill themselves, which would have been clearer to point out than a contrived toddler argument.
Your take is a dangerous one.