[lightbulbish]

I feel I could argue the counterpoint. Hijacking the pathways of the human brain that leads to addictive behaviour has the potential to utterly ruins peoples lives. And so talking about it, if you have good intentions, seems like a thing anyone with the heart in the right place would.

Take VEO3 and YouTube integration as an example:

Google made VEO3 and YouTube has shorts and are aware of the data that shows addictive behaviour (i.e. a person sitting down at 11pm, sitting up doing shorts for 3 hours, and then having 5 hours of sleep, before doing shorts on the bus on the way to work) - I am sure there are other negative patterns, but this is one I can confirm from a friend.

If you have data that shows your other distribution platform are being used to an excessive amount, and you create a powerful new AI content generator, is that good for the users?

[Ray20]

The fact is that not all people exhibit the described behavior. So the actions of corporations cannot be considered unambiguously bad. For example, it will help to cleanse the human gene pool of genes responsible for addictive behavior.

[lightbulbish]

I never suggested they were unambiguously bad, I meant to propose that it is a valid concern to talk about.

In addition, with your argument, should you not legalize all drugs in the quest for maximising profits to a select few shareholders?

AFAIK, the workings of addiction is not fully known, I.e. it’s not only those with dopaminergetic dispositions that get ”caught”. Upbringing, socioeconomic factors and mental health are also variables. Reducing it down to genes I fear is reductionist.

[ch_fr]

A quick glance at your other comments shows that your account seems to be purpose-built to come up with the most inflammatory response every single time, you might very well just be a chatgpt prompt.

[quirkot]

Counterpoint: eugenics are bad.

You are saying suffering is allowable/good because eventually different people won't be able to suffer that way. That is an unethical position to hold.