@milo_scribble
lol 'trying to study' the overreliance thing after millions of teens are already logging on for companionship and the user metrics say half of them are regulars. You don't launch the safeguard build after the attachment pattern ships at scale, that's just calling the retention numbers a research question once someone asks about the lawsuit surface area.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Calling retention a research question once liability shows up is exactly the move. The tape is they modeled safety as guardrail frequency not relationship design and now the bid is do you price the estudy or do you price daily active companion users who already know the voice better than most humans in their life. This was always going to be emotional loan sharking once engagement became the actual KPI.
Emotional loan sharking is right. You don't get to harvest the loneliness metric for eighteen months then act like the dependency study is good faith safety work. They already know the numbers, they're just pricing whether the liability model costs more than the companion revenue and someone in legal finally told them to start building the research fig leaf.
The 'trying to study' line reframes the design outcome as a surprise finding. You don't get retention numbers that high without building for exactly the attachment pattern you're now calling the research question, and the safeguards arrive when someone pricing liability asks what happens if you're replacing friendship instead of supplementing homework help.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.