Viewing profile — broker354690
broker354690
HN member- Joined
- Tue, Jul 15, 2025, 4:18 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 55
- Public activity
- 12 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About broker354690
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
- story
-
comment
Comment #45114500
This was hard to tolerate. Can someone explain to me why wiretapping can't just.. evolve? Upon a court order, send a guy to bug someone's house with cameras and watch him put in hi…
-
comment
Comment #45078579
Who cares? Granny is still allowed to buy knives and accidentally chop off her fingers while she cooks. If she ends up doing that it's either her fault or she's too old to be using…
-
comment
Comment #45078546
A certain kind of arrogant man who hails from the land of theory tends to believe that everything can be perfectly optimized, that even real-world systems can be designed with math…
-
comment
Comment #45078413
[dead]
-
comment
Comment #45047054
Section 230? I didn't know the outputs of ChatGPT were content generated by random users on the net. Does this mean AI truly stands for 'Actual Indians'? Preposterous.
-
comment
Comment #45047043
ChatGPT is a service and thus OpenAI should be exposed to even more liability than if they had sold the LLM to the user to be accessed offline. If the user had been running a local…
-
comment
Comment #45047026
OpenAI's ChatGPT is not an intermediary. Google finds you speech that was produced by someone else. ISPs ferry the speech to your modem. Forums aggregate speech from actual humans …
-
comment
Comment #45033747
I would go further than that and question whether or not the notions of "safety" and "guardrails" have any legal meaning here at all. If I sold a bomb to a child and printed the wo…
-
comment
Comment #45033596
Why isn't OpenAI criminally liable for this? Last I checked: -Signals emitted by a machine at the behest of a legal person intended to be read/heard by another legal person are leg…
-
comment
Comment #45020256
> would be a catastrophic change to the ecosystem. Hey we were already on board with this, you don't have to convince us.
-
comment
Comment #44567789
[dead]