131–140 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
socialize the losses/risks, privatize the profits.
If an OpenAI model helped someone create a cancer cure, they wouldn't see a dime from that beneficial act. So why should they be liable if someone does something harmful with the model?
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…
I think the info has been available for many years and the thing stopping terrorists wasn’t info.
Good luck on being on the list of people using chatgpt and claude to make neurotoxins ;)
I assume anthropic and ooenai are selling prompt logs to the fbi and other countries’ law enforcement for data mining.
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…
Yes fortunately it is really bad at actually making novel bioweapons or syntheses in general so whatever you made probably wouldn't do more than give someone a mild headache.
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?
That implies that it is already illegal to provide this information. But is it? If a human did so with intent to further a crime, it would be conspiracy. But if you were discussing it without such intent (e.x. red teaming/creating scenarios with someone working in chemistry or law enforcement), it isn't. An AI has no intent when it answers questions, so it is not clear how it could count as conspiracy. Calling it "lazy engineering" implies that there was a duty to prevent that info from being released in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making knowledge illegal is a dangerous precedent. Actions should be illegal, not knowledge. Don't outlaw knowing how to make neurotoxic agents, outlaw actually trying to make them. As for OpenAI immunity, I'm not sure I see the problem. Consider the converse position: if an OpenAI model helped someone create a cancer cure, would OpenAI see a dime of that money? If they can't benefit proportionally from their tool al…
1. LLMs don't just provide knowledge, they provide recommendations, advice, and instructions. 2. OpenAI very much feels that they should profit from the results of people using their tools. Even in healthcare specifically [0]. [0] https://www.wisdomai.com/insights/TheAIGRID/openai-profit-sh...
That's knowledge.
> 2. OpenAI very much feels that they should profit from the results of people using their tools. Even in healthcare specifically [0].
If they're building a tailored tool for a specific person/company and that's the agreement they sign the people who are going to use with the tool, sure. I'm talking about their generic tool, AI being knowledge as a utility, which is the context of this legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 gon…
Take all of the data, take all of the credit, take all of the money, and none of the blame. That would be a better mission statement for OpenAI at this point.
I think you've just summed up late stage capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
And even if it doesn't work, at the end of the day you can work with a model to figure out what went wrong over-time gaining expertise in the field.
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…
> context exhausition attack