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

151–160 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#151

Post by JumpCrisscross »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #122
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose

Original, not primary. At least in America, most guns are not purchased with an intention to kill anything–they're for training. Trying to conclude the morality of a thing from its historic purpose is a bit silly. Particularly within the frame of a novel technology like AI.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#152

Post by nomel »

josh_p wrote: post #150

I have to wonder if settling on the term "AI" for these tools has caused the average person to overestimate the capabilities of them. Anyone in tech and tech-adjacent industries knows the difference and that we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI. And that a true AGI is not possible with this technology. Would this lawsuit even be a thing? That and DeSantis is probably still eyeing a presidential run in 2028 and this will w…

I think you're overestimated the baseline capabilities of an average person, but even more so with the average criminal that's dumb enough to use these tools to commit crime, who should benefit greatly from AI's help.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#153

Post by root_axis »

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

It's the opposite, "weather engineering" is a veneer of legitimacy layered over crackpot nonsense.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#154

Post by kelseyfrog »

frozenseven wrote: post #105
kelseyfrog wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents should: Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1]. Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2]. Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3]. Not have had children in the first place[4]. Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5]. Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6]. Get to dec…

Bonus: And we should recognize that kids have responsibilities too. If they do something bad, it's silly trying to throw the blame on whatever the current moral panic is. Video games, D&D, rock/rap music, AI (!), etc.

I kinda feel like the people inciting moral panics should be held responsible for doing so. It's the social equivalent of dumping toxic chemicals.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#155

Post by micromacrofoot »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151
micromacrofoot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose Original, not primary. At least in America, most guns are not purchased with an intention to kill anything–they're for training. Trying to conclude the morality of a thing from its historic purpose is a bit silly. Particularly within the frame of a novel technology like AI.

Training for what?

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#156

Post by ronsor »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #135
YesBox wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's unclear to me that any government plan to rate media would pass first amendment scrutiny. Are there any official government rating regulations?

It probably would not pass scrutiny. The FCC can only even enforce broadcast regulations because the EM spectrum is a scarce resource; they don't for cable or Internet media.

Politicians in general have a bad habit of threatening and passing speech laws that judges torch on sight.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#157

Post by BeetleB »

m463 wrote: post #124
BeetleB wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Not at all. A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#158

Post by jm4 »

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…

This is performative. This is from the same AG who is suing the NFL over the Rooney Rule.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#159

Post by jm4 »

llbbdd wrote: post #147
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…

Coincidentally, Florida was the same state that barred and later disbarred Jack Thompson, the nutcase lawyer behind a lot of the video game litigation.

Back when Florida was still a normal state. It’s been crazy here for a while now.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#160

Post by JumpCrisscross »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose Original, not primary. At least in America, most guns are not purchased with an intention to kill anything–they're for training. Trying to conclude the morality of a thing from its historic purpose is a bit silly. Particularly within the frame of a novel technology like AI.

Training for what?

> Training for what?

In the military, killing or disabling. In most other contexts, sport. You're broadly not going to know what someone aims to do with a gun solely from knowing that it is a gun.

Guns are obviously more dangerous than LLMs. But it's total nonsense to conclude LLMs are safe because they might have been originally intended to be so. Plenty of things that today have zero utility outside the military were originally invented for peaceful aims.

Post reply on HN