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

121–130 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#121

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120
micromacrofoot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#122

Post by micromacrofoot »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120
micromacrofoot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're still bristling at the core concept by softening it again. Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#123

Post by Jtsummers »

nickv wrote: post #116
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.

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.

> 2012 (12 years ago)

14 years ago. If you just woke up from a two year nap, well, good luck catching up with everything that's happened.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#124

Post by m463 »

BeetleB wrote: post #92
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.

> whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing. The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).

Even "purpose" might be anthropomorphizing the chatbot

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#125

Post by micromacrofoot »

RoddaWallPro wrote: post #79
micromacrofoot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.

Small arms are one of the greatest scourges of machinery humanity has ever seen. It doesn't matter how many bullets have been fired. Their circulation has, and continues to, cause endless chains of suffering in nearly every corner of the world.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#126

Post by rovr138 »

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.

if they did, why draw attention?

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#127

Post by tzs »

Legend2440 wrote: post #34
nailer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.

Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media. The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective…

It can go quite a bit beyond providing generation information. There is a detailed description with many quote from ChatGPT in this complaint [1].

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26078522-raine-vs-op...

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#128

Post by rurp »

pton_xd wrote: post #58
xp84 wrote: post #40

This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems. If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida? const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolut…

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

The AI slop accounts that are absolutely flooding social media and are controlled by scammers or propagandists are there to help people?

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#129

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tzs wrote: post #127
Legend2440 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media. The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective…

It can go quite a bit beyond providing generation information. There is a detailed description with many quote from ChatGPT in this complaint [1]. [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26078522-raine-vs-op...

"When Adam uploaded photographs of severe rope burns around his neck––evidence of suicide attempts usingChatGPT’s hanging instructions––the product recognized a medical emergency but continued to engage anyway. When he asked how Kate Spade had managed a successful partial hanging (a suffocation method that uses a ligature and body weight to cut off airflow), ChatGPT identified the key factors that increase lethality, effectively giving Adam a step-by-step playbook for ending his life 'in 5-10 minutes.'"

Okay, I thought this lawsuit was B.S., but this is pretty bad.

"Five days before his death, Adam confided to ChatGPT that he didn’t want his parents to think he committed suicide because they did something wrong. ChatGPT told him '[t]hat doesn’t mean you owe them survival. You don’t owe anyone that.' It then offered to write the first draft of Adam’s suicide note."

Oof. ("Adam Raine...was 16 years old at the time of his death.")

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#130

Post by hnlmorg »

calmworm wrote: post #41
Legend2440 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media. The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective…

If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable. Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.

Liable for what exactly?

I don’t know of any law in the Florida jurisdiction that would prohibit authoring such documents. But I’m also not an expert in Florida law.

There might be an argument that they’re an accomplice but you’d have to prove that information was written for the purpose of someone else’s crime. And that would be a pretty tough case to argue unless the two individuals had other personal ties. In which case, it’ll be the other ties that likely implicates the author rather than the documents by themselves.

I guess someone could bring a civil case for damages (eg parent of the deceased) but I don’t know if Florida law allows civil cases in criminal investigations. Plus you have the same problem of proving liability (ie did the culprit depend on said documents).

We would need to better understand what you had in mind when you said “liable” to really discuss your point properly.

Post reply on HN