I don’t much like that take. Ars commits excellent journalism.
From the story:
About 3 percent of students in the study had positive mental health outcomes, reporting that talking to the chatbot “halted their suicidal ideation.” But researchers also found “there are some cases where their use is either negligible or might actually contribute to suicidal ideation.”
Ars offers free articles while most publications have a paywall, so I imagine funding isn’t as generous as it would have been 30 years ago when such publications would have been in magazine format.
Imagine a 3% success rate being acceptable in any situation. That tends to get you fired.
3% success vs what? 6% sent over the edge? 10% 20% ?
If the journalist asked for a specific figure but was evaded then it should be stated in the article.
I don’t much like that take. Ars commits excellent journalism.
From the story:
I don’t think they contacted the researchers and the linked study does not seem to give the answer (I spent a few minutes looking).
I generally don’t go about doing research for free.
Ars offers free articles while most publications have a paywall, so I imagine funding isn’t as generous as it would have been 30 years ago when such publications would have been in magazine format.
Ars is actually my only paid subscription. Didn’t need to, but wanted to support their journalism.
I removed the insult.
Thank you.