> You're showing off a perfect example of understanding your domain vs understanding the bigger picture. [...] you need to learn to discard that sort of extremism
How very strident of you. What exactly do you think my "domain" is? What "extremism" do you think I'm in the grip of?
My comment says "can't be 100% child proof". But you proceeded as if my comment implied child safety is an unreasonable thing to ask about (literally in those words). That's either a bit of extremism or a strawman argument. I was being charitable in that you wouldn't make a bad faith argument and attributed it to a more ideological source.
And I think you misunderstood, I don't think your domain is AI since you're saying "solve health and safety risks". People in AI tend to state that problem a lot more concretely than shocking article headlines and tend to use more nuanced language than "solve" since alignment is a complex topic.
It's just you're starting your comment by positing that your position is in line with that position of those of Google's experts, and I'm saying that's a great example of zooming in on your domain rather than the larger picture.
—
After all, the only way to claim that a warning that kids should be supervised "does not actually mitigate the ethical concerns" is either a refusal to look at the larger picture, or a misunderstanding of what mitigate means?
From my perspective, you are not only not addressing what I'm asking, you're throwing up a wall of prose in a manner that reminds me of a squid squirting ink, replete with what seem to me distortions and straw men. I tried a couple times, but this certainly doesn't look like conversational progress to me, so I'll tap out here.
How very strident of you. What exactly do you think my "domain" is? What "extremism" do you think I'm in the grip of?