to be completely honest, i wish that your original claims had been correct
because i suspect that it wouldn’t actually make a difference at all, and that would have been a very useful way to get at the crux: that, even without this clear and direct language, an attempt to outlaw chatbots “impersonating medical professionals” would have effectively prevented AI from offering individualized medical advice even if the bill in question were not so extreme
this is just an intuition from seeing how licensure works in other areas, but it seems to be an intuition that a lot of other people in this sphere have. it would have been very useful for epistemics, imo, if we could have gotten a version of the bill that actually looked the way you originally portrayed it, and then observed whether it did in reality lead to AI no longer giving medical, legal etc advice without extensive jailbreaking
to be completely honest, i wish that your original claims had been correct
because i suspect that it wouldn’t actually make a difference at all, and that would have been a very useful way to get at the crux: that, even without this clear and direct language, an attempt to outlaw chatbots “impersonating medical professionals” would have effectively prevented AI from offering individualized medical advice even if the bill in question were not so extreme
this is just an intuition from seeing how licensure works in other areas, but it seems to be an intuition that a lot of other people in this sphere have. it would have been very useful for epistemics, imo, if we could have gotten a version of the bill that actually looked the way you originally portrayed it, and then observed whether it did in reality lead to AI no longer giving medical, legal etc advice without extensive jailbreaking