[qwertylicious]

This is the story of the modern tech industry at large: a major new technology is released, harms are caused, but because of industry norms and a favourable legal environment, companies aren't held liable for those harms.

It's pretty amazing, really. Build a washing machine that burns houses down and the consequences are myriad and severe. But build a machine that allows countless people's private information to be leaked to bad actors and it's a year of credit monitoring and a mea culpa. Build a different machine that literally tells people to poison themselves and, not only are there no consequences, you find folks celebrating that the rules aren't getting in the way.

Go figure.

[moduspol]

I think the harms of expensive and/or limited and/or inconvenient access to even basic medical expert Q&A are far greater. Though they're not as easy to measure.

[tempodox]

And, what, LLMs to the rescue?

[usrnm]

How many people do you think the early steam engines killed? Or airplanes

[qwertylicious]

Or sweatshops or radium infused tinctures.

We've moved on from the 1800s. Why are you using that as your baseline of expectation?

[pjc50]

Quite a lot. Boiler explosions were common until a better understanding was reached of the technology. Is this supposed to be an argument in its favor?

[ineedasername]

Yes, people have died in preventable ways before, so as technology progresses and civilization has advanced in countless ways in the last 200+ years, we should not attempt to improve nor even critique preventable deaths that we either did not or could not before. It should be an area of advancement that we enshrine in status quo as we in other areas rush forward and even race for improvements.

[specproc]

Considerably fewer when regulated.

[Smeevy]

How many people were killed after following medical advice from steam engines and airplanes?

[m463]

it's even easier to point to cars