upvote
Law is about intent. It is not code, and it’s a mistake to think of law like code where you need to unit test and cover all edge cases.

In law, it is sufficient to show an intent to take actions that foreseeably caused harm. Specific laws, of course but you don’t need to cover hypotheticals that capture all abstract cases in order to to show a particular actor caused harm.

reply
You’ve not already noticed that the end of every consumer-facing LLM chat always includes an invitation for just one more turn to keep the loop going?
reply
No matter how intelligent they make the AIs they work for openAI/Anthropic, not the users. Our future lies in open, local models, or we might aswell give up our computers altogether
reply
> Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

You can stop scrolling instagram "at any time", too.

Chatbots are actually a pretty poor but very relevant choice of example: they are already tuned with RLHF to be engaging and addictive to talk to. That's a huge reason why LLM psychosis is a thing, and it's a big reason why some people like using chatbots so much. They're designed to be addictive, just like facebook/instagram/tiktok are.

reply
"You can stop smoking at any time"

"You can stop gambling at any time"

As much as I may agree with you, you need a different argument.

reply
I don't see why.

The problem with your examples is that it's a person lying to themselves. GP is acting as an objective third party and telling the truth about their hypothetical.

There are lots of things you really can stop at any time. I could stop eating peanut butter at any time, if I had a compelling reason.

reply
I'm not sure about that example. I'm seeing non tech people getting very addicted to their customized chat bots. Companies are very primed to eventually nudge them to enshittify the content of the responses and it could get bad.
reply
> 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.

reply
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

reply
> 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.

reply
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)
reply
> 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.

reply
But you still did it. If I sunbathe every day without sun cream, whom do we regulate? Assuming people have no ability to choose.
reply
It’s not about regulation it’s about intervention. It’s not that you’re not allowed to saw pieces of yourself off with a chainsaw, stranger of a choice as that may be. The idea is people in your life who care about you may want to intervene to stop you, as no matter how pleasurable you might find what you’re doing to be, it’s slowly killing you.

And that’s not even going into the science behind addiction where the whole “but you chose to do this” gets more and more dubious the deeper you go.

reply
For sunbathing in particular, do what Australia does:

- large scale public health campaigns on dangers of skin cancer. With a catchy song and slogan ("slip, slop, slap... Slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat")

- schools make it compulsory for kids to have hats in summer

- regulate tanning salons, promote fake tans in preference to sunbeds

- doctors check people for skin cancers during regular checkups

And over just a few years, being very brown quickly gets associated with being reckless and unhealthy.

In other words, regulate and educate

reply
You have moved the goalpost.
reply
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.
reply
Suppose you have a video service which takes context from previous videos you watched to show you more videos you're interested in. Doesn't sound very addictive, does it? You described it in an innocuous way, but I can absolutely see that being a lead-in to a parasocial "relationship" or even AI psychosis.

> you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

doubt. Lonely people will get addicted.

reply