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

71–80 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#71

Post by beering »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #52
Legend2440 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think the families are eager for the HN peanut gallery to pick apart what their loved ones said.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#72

Post by Legend2440 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #65
Legend2440 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, they’d just be like “well technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess it’s ok!” The law doesn’t work like that.

The Anarchist Cookbook is fully legal to possess and distribute in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook

So yes. It is generally legal to provide information about making drugs, bombs, or guns.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#73

Post by beeblebok »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#74

Post by broost3r »

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…

i live in FL and i think the banning data centers thing is also just political posturing - we are in hurricane alley after all. i really don't think anyone was seriously considering building an AI data center in like St. John's County or whatever

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#75

Post by micromacrofoot »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59
pton_xd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose

guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped

you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal

whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#76

Post by StilesCrisis »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59
pton_xd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#77

Post by vorticalbox »

pton_xd wrote: post #61
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59

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.

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.

Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#79

Post by RoddaWallPro »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #75
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59

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.

you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be n…

I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
Post reply on HN