cobblestone32

> The user never specify the goal clearly enough for AI system to work.

This is sort of a fundamental problem with all AI. If you tell a robot assistant to "make a cup of tea", how's it supposed to know that that implies "don't break the priceless vase in the kitchen" and "don't step on the cat's tail", et cetera. You're never going to align it well enough with "human values" to be safe. Even just defining in human-understandable terms what those values are is a deep existential question of philosophy, let alone specifying it for a machine that's capable of acting in the world independently.

I mean, there's a limited number of dates and priests. Are you suggesting there should be a fixed fee for funerals, which dates and priests being allocated randomly? That's certainly analogous to state-funded healthcare as compared to private healthcare, but unless you want the government to interfere in the church, I'm having a hard time seeing how you'd implement that. And I mean, all cultural things are "manipulation" in some sense, take the case of going to see the latest superhero movie on the release day. Of course the tickets would be more pricey, is that also coercive?

I'm having a hard time seeing a valid comparison between the act of keeping the species alive and the act of consuming poisonous chemicals.

I mean, it's not often you hear about tobacco dealers shooting each other in a crowded mall, or alcohol bosses getting their house blown up (or sometimes their neighbors house). So there might be a few small differences between companies and criminal gangs.

While I don't disagree with the assertion that churches are somewhat "predatory" with the threat of hell etc., this statement isn't really supporting that thesis:

> if you go and put money in every sunday will help you organize weddings and funerals which are very important dates for people

So basically you're paying for a service? Your argument would be much better if they didn't actually help people with important stuff.

Well...

> In pure form, nicotine is a colorless to yellowish, oily liquid that readily penetrates biological membranes and acts as a potent neurotoxin in insects, where it serves as a antiherbivore toxin.

Are you suggesting pushing it underground (e.g. prohibition or modern marijuana trade in many countries) is better in any way?

Here's a citation about filters.

> The overwhelming majority of independent research shows that filters do not reduce the harms associated with smoking - a fact understood by tobacco industry scientists in the 1960s. In fact, filters may increase the harms caused by smoking by enabling smokers to inhale smoke more deeply into their lungs.

Also, plain common sense will tell you that inhaling toxic smoke through a small piece of paper is not much healthier than inhaling toxic smoke directly.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9340047/

Great analysis, let's also solve smoking and alcohol over-consumption by some self-reflection. No need for any regulations, people are always perfectly rational and have perfect information about any health implications of what they consume. Addicted to gambling? Just stop it.

(For the record my only vice is coffee.)