• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Powderhorn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      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.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        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).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            24 months ago

            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.

            • Powderhorn
              link
              fedilink
              English
              34 months ago

              Ars is actually my only paid subscription. Didn’t need to, but wanted to support their journalism.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                I mistakenly thought you were the actual journalist. But I should always presume the journalist will see my comments and therefore not be so harsh, especially when freeloading.

                FWIW I subscribe to an (Australian) online newspaper which is free just like you do. The difference being that I rarely read it since I am on top of those topics largely. Am just glad that it exists for others because it is well researched and presented.