14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Just because something is not personally experienced by you in no way impacts the truth or validity of others’ experiences. And being a statistical argument, it means that you are looking at the total effect of all events.

Strangely, every person I ever talked to who had cancer was alive when I talked to them. Based this experience I can apparently conclude that cancer is rather benign.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Strangely, every person I ever talked to who had cancer was alive when I talked to them. Based this experience I can apparently conclude that cancer is rather benign.

Yup. I’ve never had cancer, ergo it’s no big deal

On 8/25/2025 at 4:38 PM, zapatos said:

It's been my experience that talking on the phone vs talking to a passenger seems much different. In trying to decide why it felt that way to me I concluded it is because the person on the phone is not sharing the driving experience with me and can distract me by continuing to talk when I need to concentrate on driving. A person in the car with me recognizes when I am dealing with a situation that requires my full attention, and thus quits talking for a moment.

If you are talking to a passenger and driving, you can say 'be quiet for a moment' if the situation demands it, so you are able to focus on driving or other drivers.

Just found this course on Futurelearn, which may give some insight into your question

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/justice-fundamental-rights-and-artificial-intelligence

Paul

Microsoft has recently announced that Copilot is for entertainment only, so I think the lawyers are scared about liability as people blame the AI companies for screwups.

“Copilot is for entertainment purposes only,” the company warned. “It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.”

https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/05/copilot-is-for-entertainment-purposes-only-according-to-microsofts-terms-of-service/

AI will probably have to get over the hurdle that lie detectors never could before being accepted in courts. People will likely try and there will be lawsuits challenging it.

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you".

For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you".

For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

In both degree and speed...