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

Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#111

Post by oceanplexian »

beering wrote: post #104
Legend2440 wrote: post #18

Claims in the lawsuit seem sketchy, and I don't think they will win. It is probably not true that ChatGPT has resulted in an increase in murders and suicides, and certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this. It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth". But I also don't think they expect to win. They just want to show that they're…

At the end of the article, the main guy says he wants tech companies to report your conversations to the authorities if bad content is detected. That’s their goal, apparently

Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#112

Post by jlarocco »

ch4s3 wrote: post #108
jlarocco wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, "since Obama" isn't very long ago, and Hillary and Biden weren't very inspiring candidates, to say the least.

It was 18 years ago, and I did point out other metrics to support my case.

The 2016 election was 10 years ago.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#113

Post by tadfisher »

good8675309 wrote: post #90
rkochman wrote: post #82

Ah, yes, from the state that brought us this official website: https://stopchemtrails.com/

Chemtrails aren't proven but weather engineering is: https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-weather-modification The chemtrails conspiracy is just used to dismiss valid concerns about weather modification

I love that "weather modification" is a valid concern but modifying the weather by emitting GHGs is not: https://www.theinvadingsea.com/2026/02/13/florida-legislatur...

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#115

Post by mrandish »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23

Sam Altman has been running a personal PR campaign against himself for three years now. It’s tremendously popular to take pot shots at him, which means launching an investigation or lawsuit against OpenAI is probably politically expedient even if it goes nowhere.

I suspect the plan here is to grandstand on this suit through the election cycle and then settle for a token $20M or $40M fine (payable to the state attorney general's office) and a jointly negotiated consent decree mandating vague rules which mirror the internal policies OAI has already adopted to shield themselves from liability. It's all politics, optics and 'governance theater'.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#116

Post by nickv »

jlarocco wrote: post #81
ch4s3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really anymore. The house seats are 20R and 8D, they haven't voted blue for president since Obama, and haven't elected a democrat as governor since the 90s. Voter registration is also heavily skewed republican.

To be fair, "since Obama" isn't very long ago, and Hillary and Biden weren't very inspiring candidates, to say the least.

I get the sentiment but Obama won his second term in 2012 (12 years ago) and the last Democratic governor was in 1998 (28 years ago!)

Florida hasn't been purple in a long time.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#117

Post by beering »

oceanplexian wrote: post #111
beering wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the article, the main guy says he wants tech companies to report your conversations to the authorities if bad content is detected. That’s their goal, apparently

Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.

Then, what are they even fighting about?

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#118

Post by bob1029 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #96
pton_xd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.

A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.

> A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human.

See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#119

Post by z3c0 »

beering wrote: post #117
oceanplexian wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.

Then, what are they even fighting about?

Who is included on the mailing list. Florida is asking to be included.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#120

Post by JumpCrisscross »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #75
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purpose of a gun is to kill things I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.

you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be n…

> you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way

I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.

Post reply on HN