Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 343 posts

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#111

Post by tdeck »

himata4113 wrote: post #78
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countless downloadable models (including de-aligned mainstream models) can do this.

None have had the capability to provide me with instructions that have this high of accuracy including the suggesion of completely novel chemical reactions. I am not a chemist so I can't back it up, but if an AI can solve mathematics it's not unreasonable to say that they can also solve creating new neurotoxins en masse.

Isn't the biggest problem with creating neurotoxins not poisoning yourself while doing it?

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#112

Post by theshackleford »

himata4113 wrote: post #78
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countless downloadable models (including de-aligned mainstream models) can do this.

None have had the capability to provide me with instructions that have this high of accuracy including the suggesion of completely novel chemical reactions. I am not a chemist so I can't back it up, but if an AI can solve mathematics it's not unreasonable to say that they can also solve creating new neurotoxins en masse.

> it's not unreasonable

It in fact is. Do you often go around making claims you are entirely unqualified to make? Or is this something new you’re trying?

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#113

Post by thegrimmest »

repeekad wrote: post #80
morpheuskafka wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> neurotoxic agents from items you can get at most everyday stores I mean, bleach and ammonia will do that. So I'm not sure that's really much of an accomplishment for AI.

Because if you didn’t already know that, like an immature deprived and desperate kid, being able to easily find out is really really bad.. Plenty of lazy AI apps just throw messages into history despite the known risks of context rot and lack of compaction for long chat threads. Should a company not be held liable when something goes wrong due to lazy engineering around known concerns?

No, because that would indicate there should be some sort of regulatory standard for what does/does not constitute "lazy engineering". Creating this standard in turn creates regulatory/compliance overhead for every software engineering organization. This in turn slows everything right down and destroys the startup ethos. "Move fast and break things" is a thing for a reason. The whole point of the free market is to avoid this kind of burdensome regulation at all costs.

If customers want to buy "lazily-engineered" products, from where do you derive the authority to tell them they can't?

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#114

Post by tdeck »

lettergram wrote: post #103
himata4113 wrote: post #23

I have made both GPT 5.4 and Opus 4.6 produce me content on creating neurotoxic agents from items you can get at most everyday stores. It struggled to suggest how to source phosphorus, but eventually lead me to some ebay listings that sell phosphorus elemental 'decorations' and also lead me towards real!! blackmarket codewords for sourcing such materials. It coached me how to: stay safe, what materials I need, how to…

You can buy books on how to make and obtain chemicals on your own. Hell here's an Internet Archive book on making explosives https://archive.org/details/saxon-kurt.-fireworks-explosives... . If you ever chat with older folks pre-90's much of this information was accessible fairly easily. It only changed with the push by the government to crackdown on Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, militias and other related groups. The…

> The item you have requested had an error:

Item cannot be found.

which prevents us from displaying this page.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#115

Post by jsmith99 »

himata4113 wrote: post #70
WarmWash wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While scary, information like this has been pretty accessible for 20-30 years now. In the wild west days of the early internet, there were whole forums devoted to "stuff the government doesn't want you to know" (Temple Of The Screaming Electron, anyone?). I suppose the friction is scariest part, every year the IQ required to end the world drops by a point, but motivated and mildly intelligent people have been able to…

Well the real issue is that it knocks down the knowledge barrier, giving your step by step guides and reinterating what parts will kill you is the important part. Understanding and staying alive while producing neuro chemicals are the biggest challenges here. A depressed person with no prior knowledge could possibly figure out a way to make these chemicals without killing themselves and that's the problem.

They can do that by jailbreaking models but is that really easier and less work than getting it from Wikipedia?

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#116

Post by estearum »

saghm wrote: post #79
estearum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist?

He was not the founder of OpenAI

nobody was "the" founder of OpenAI. Sam was one of many cofounders, though I don't see how the particulars here are relevant to the point above.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#117

Post by jstanley »

dryarzeg wrote: post #52
jstanley wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they should 100% be liable for the latter. Why? I don't see that a drug designed by ChatGPT should result in any more or less liability than a drug designed by a human? I think if a human designs a drug and tests it and it all seems fine and the government approves it and then it later turns out to kill loads of people but nobody thought it would... that's just bad luck! You shouldn't face serious liability…

> that's just bad luck Can't agree with this. No, not at all. That can't be true... That's not "just bad luck". I believe this is actually a serious case of negligence and oversight - regardless of where exactly it occurred, whether on the part of the drug’s manufacturer, the government agency responsible for oversight, or somewhere else. It just doesn’t work that way. Any drug undergoes very thorough and rigorous te…

> I physically can’t imagine how, with proper, responsible testing, such a dangerous "drug" could successfully pass all stages of testing and inspection.

It might cause minor changes that we don't yet know how to notice, and which only cause symptoms in 20 years' time, for example. You can't test drugs indefinitely, at some point you need to say the test is over and it looks good. What if the downsides occur past the end of the test horizon?

> ChatGPT acts as a tool in the drug manufacturing process. And this tool can be faulty by design in some cases.

ChatGPT is not intended to be a drug manufacturing tool though? If you use any other random piece of software in the course of designing drugs, that doesn't make it the software developer's fault if it has a bug that you didn't notice that results in you making faulty drugs. And that's if it's even a bug! ChatGPT can give bad advice without even having any bugs. That's just how it works.

In the Therac-25 case the machine is designed and marketed as a medical treatment device. If OpenAI were running around claiming "ChatGPT can reliably design drugs, you don't even need to test it, just administer what it comes up with" then sure they should be liable. But that would be an insane thing to claim.

I think where there may be some confusion is if ChatGPT claims that a drug design is safe and effective. Is that a de facto statement from OpenAI that they should be held to? I don't think so. That's just how ChatGPT works. If we can't have a ChatGPT that is able to make statements that don't bind OpenAI, then I don't think we can have ChatGPT at all.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#118

Post by Topfi »

troupo wrote: post #85
Topfi wrote: post #66

Quoting the original bill [0]: > "Critical harm" means the death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1,000,000,000 of damages to rights in property caused or materially enabled by a frontier model, through either: (1) the creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon; or (2) engaging in conduct that: (A) acts with no meaningful human intervention; and (B) would, if commit…

It's the "guns don't kill people" equivalent for AIs. --- Before the pitchforks and downvotes: - yes, it's a deliberate simplification - yes, the issue is complex because you can also argue that you can't blame authors of encyclopedias and chemistry books for bombs and poisons, so why would we blame providers of LLMs - and no, this bill is only introduced to cover everyone's assess when, not if, LLMs use results in l…

In fairness, a well designed and tested weapon at least can be expected to reliably and consistently perform the same thing each time. We also understand deeply how they work and can easily investigate if something happens whether it was user error, a defect or design issue. LLMs, not so much.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#119

Post by timmmmmmay »

conqrr wrote: post #46
himata4113 wrote: post #23

I have made both GPT 5.4 and Opus 4.6 produce me content on creating neurotoxic agents from items you can get at most everyday stores. It struggled to suggest how to source phosphorus, but eventually lead me to some ebay listings that sell phosphorus elemental 'decorations' and also lead me towards real!! blackmarket codewords for sourcing such materials. It coached me how to: stay safe, what materials I need, how to…

Wasnt this as accessible pre AI with just Google search too?

the people that want to make sure the AI never gives you any "potentially dangerous information" also want to rigorously control your google search results, and also what books you're allowed to read

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#120

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ShowalkKama wrote: post #110
himata4113 wrote: post #23

I have made both GPT 5.4 and Opus 4.6 produce me content on creating neurotoxic agents from items you can get at most everyday stores. It struggled to suggest how to source phosphorus, but eventually lead me to some ebay listings that sell phosphorus elemental 'decorations' and also lead me towards real!! blackmarket codewords for sourcing such materials. It coached me how to: stay safe, what materials I need, how to…

you can already gather the same information by searching online. Do you want to know how to kill yourself? forums are for nerds. Here is wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#List Do you want to make a bomb? the first thing that came to my mind is a pressure cooker (due to news coverage). Searching "bomb with pressure cooker" yields a wikipedia article, skimming it randomly my eyes read "Step-by-st…

People are not complaining because the information is available

people are complaining because it’s way easier now to just download an app ask a bunch of questions in a text box and get a bunch of answers that you personally could not have done unless you had an excessive amount of energy and motivation

I personally think all this is great and I’m excited for all information to become trivially available

Are they gonna be a bunch of people who accidentally break stuff? probably. evolution is a bitch

Post reply on HN