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

51–60 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#51

Post by JumpCrisscross »

delichon wrote: post #46
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.

Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.

> Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already

So has toothpaste. I’m really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#52

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

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…

> Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases,

And they never would be without the lawsuits, so, I don’t feel bad for OpenAI. All of big tech needs a kick in the ass on transparency.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#53

Post by twodave »

bpodgursky wrote: post #6

It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag. Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible. Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, ba…

This isn’t really true. FL population has exploded so much with high earners that they’re talking about getting rid of property taxes, and Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#54

Post by kelseyfrog »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
kelseyfrog wrote: post #8

It's better that kids be harmed than the government starts intervening with regulation. Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.

> or parents should parent their kids Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kids’ interest.

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 decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7].

I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708

4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884

5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303

6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531

7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

twodave wrote: post #53
bpodgursky wrote: post #6

It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag. Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible. Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, ba…

This isn’t really true. FL population has exploded so much with high earners that they’re talking about getting rid of property taxes, and Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth.

> Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth

Source? (Not doubting. But I’m finding conflicting figures.)

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #54
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or parents should parent their kids Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kids’ interest.

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…

> HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting

Sure. HN is also filled with folks who don’t vote or believe in calling their electeds. Parenting has collective-responsibility elements. I’m not saying I support this instance of it. But in general, the argument that parenting has to be a solely individual responsibility while tech companies pillage our youth is a flawed pitch. (My personal view on this balance flipped with social media.)

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#58

Post by pton_xd »

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.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#59

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> 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.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#60

Post by mrandish »

While I generally lean toward the AI skeptical side, at least for more extreme claims on near-term LLM capability, growth and time frames, I'm not at all a fan of this. It seems like political grandstanding and unlikely to net much in the way of meaningful harm reduction.

If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.

Post reply on HN