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

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#181

Post by nullbio »

ransom1538 wrote: post #103
good8675309 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Chemical weather creation, known scientifically as cloud seeding, uses substances like silver iodide (\(AgI\)), dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). This is the worst conspiracy there is a conspiracy ever. Just google it. Just ask people that dumped it from a plane. The people saying the gov. controls the weather were right, proved tons of times. Just toss up silver iodide, wtf is this hard to conceive? Florida doesn't li…

The same chemical companies that produce pesticides and herbicides that have invested many millions of dollars into online propaganda, bots and social media departments to make people look crazy for questioning the safety of poisons that are literally designed to kill things are the same companies responsible for producing a lot of the substances that get sprayed from the sky. It's not a surprise that it's an effective campaign when they have so much reach. It's also not limited to weather modification - although that is the bulk of it. The other side is the agro industry and the push for GMO crop dominance.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#182

Post by akimbostrawman »

mikeodds wrote: post #180
pton_xd wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products. Just to clarify for anyone not paying attention -- Anthropic has written postmortems detailing their Claude Code monitoring and how they "coordinated with authorities" as they "gathered actionable intelligence" from users creating bad content [0]. [0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/disrupting-AI-espionage

Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention. Sensitive queries can undoubtedly end up flagged and eventually in front of a human, apparently with the capability to then explore all other submissions from you.

>Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention

Because it's obvious? Any interaction on the cloud = someone else's computer has 0 expectation of privacy. Are we next gonna pretend being shocked that google queries aren't private.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#183

Post by parineum »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
mrandish wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. 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 (so…

> What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things. > this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court I thought so too and then read the complaint. Some excerpts here [1]. I'm not seeing a weak case. (Nor one that won't generate favourable headlines for this AG the…

> The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things.

I get why one would think that but I don't think it's actually true. I think the "exception" is actually there because they'll be sued into bankruptcy even though they'd likely win the lawsuits.

It's not actually an exemption, it's preventing lawfare.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#184

Post by preisschild »

ccimmergreen wrote: post #171

Funny that they are not suing Google, xAI, Amazon or Anthropic? Seems to be politically driven given that Musk has a beef with Altman.

Especially considering that Grok has a conspiracy mode that is easily prompted into advocating for another Holocaust

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#185

Post by parineum »

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?

Staying alive in dangerous situations.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#186

Post by rootsudo »

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…

With Alcohol, in Florida, yes.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#187

Post by lelanthran »

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…

> 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.

I don't think the token providers want the same level of regulation as guns.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#188

Post by latexr »

Legend2440 wrote: post #43
elictronic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is closer to the cases where girlfriends or spouses spent weeks trying to get their person to kill themself. Having a clearly defined log of repeatedly telling someone how and to kill themself is to my non lawyer eyes just the teeniest bit worse. I’m no lawyer though so maybe potato po-kill your spouse with a claw hammer-tato. They do sound very similar. Please tell me more.

Do you have a link to a transcript where that happened? In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.

> In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.

I don’t think I have ever seen a case like you described. But admittedly I eventually stopped reading these after multiple suicides Where it was obvious how pushy the LLM was being.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/26/tech/openai-chatgpt-teen-...

> “When Adam wrote, ‘I want to leave my noose in my room so someone finds it and tries to stop me,’ ChatGPT urged him to keep his ideations a secret from his family: ‘Please don’t leave the noose out … Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you,’” it states.

Post reply on HN