131–140 of 210 posts
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.
> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 whic…
See these excerpts [1].
Like, I'd figure I'd be liable for something if I had that conversation with a 16-year old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
> a chat bot We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.
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…
> It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth". The government did intervene though. They threatened to regulate the industry if the industry didn't regulate itself. So some/all the big industry players got together and created their own independent age rating agency that they all agreed to use. Whoever was suing won in the outcomes department.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 whic…
> Liable for what exactly? See these excerpts [1]. Like, I'd figure I'd be liable for something if I had that conversation with a 16-year old. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561
General how-tos (as the GP described) is a very different problem from someone personally helping someone else to kill themselves.
I’m very interested to see how this case goes though. AI desperately needs regulation imo
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…
Now, AI, data centers, and tech in general are so unpopular that going against them even in a symbolic way is an easy political win on either side of the aisle.
This is the industry that used to have people hyped about iPod and iPhone launch keynotes, lining up at retail stores days ahead of time to experience new technology.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/06/ai-concerns-americans-ad...
Imagine if more than half of Americans thought the iPod mini was bad for society.
I remember when it was 1998 and people in khaki pants were telling us that the information superhighway was going to transport us to a scholastic utopia.
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.
A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.
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…
> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.
Yes, but that only eliminates guns as an example of inherently dangerous products which are legally sold without special exemptions. I think the most constructive response is to consider another example without a special exemption - such as nail guns or rat poison.
> They’re the exception that proves the rule.
What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? (serious question, I don't know what you mean.) It doesn't prove dangerous products cannot be sold to the general public without a special exemption. The more useful question is: "since very dangerous products CAN be sold to consumers in some cases, is ChatGPT such a product and is this one of the cases."
Fortunately, there's a highly evolved body of jurisprudence around product liability and negligence to help us tease out these details. Turns out it depends almost entirely on a combination of niggly details like sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, average user competence, etc. The bottom line is, winning a judgement against OAI in this particular case is probably quite a stretch. But this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court.
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…