Yeah, I don’t think lumping together all these cases is a good idea. There’s legit cases like AI induced psychosis. In which a chatbot directly contributed to deaths, likely even directly caused them. On the other hand a case when a murderer asks what happens if you mix benzodiazepine with alcohol, and the chatbot says it can lead to death… Or if it’s possible to keep an unregistered firearm at home… Well, clearly the murderer already made up their mind and out of some kind of stupidity, they’re bouncing ideas. All the AI does at that point is gather evidence. So it’s doing a good and legit job? I mean I know something that’s far worse and that is: murder mystery stories and movies. NCIS… Shouldn’t we outlaw those? Those are probably planting new ideas into people’s minds… Whereas ChatGPT only served as some poor-man’s Google here.

On the flipside we’re probably forgetting about the hundreds(?)/thousands(?) of other cases who are on the brink of AI psychosis, or unwell and harmed by (and because of) AI. They’re not dead (yet), but probably not okay either. And pumping out some random number like 33 and setting random standards to qualify is probably doing them a disservice. Or even something fairly simple like being amongst the 30% of staff being fired because of AI, is far worse than it reading back the package insert of some medication.

(Also, please don’t commit suicide on a railway. That’s horrible. And every commuter hates it. And I heard the train drivers hate it as well.)