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

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#91

Post by andoando »

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.

Im pretty sure thats all legal

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#92

Post by BeetleB »

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.

> 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).

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#93

Post by Sol- »

Seems like a very bad precedent if that were to become the legal interpretation. I can understand if there were requirements for AI companies to document their efforts to reduce harms in their model reports, but ultimately this is a general intelligence (to which degree you can debate) and it's part of its purpose and utility to be able to converse naturally.

Of course it should steer people away from harmful thoughts like any sensible human would, but that's all you can do, really.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#94

Post by 238172 »

delichon wrote: post #36

The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like aiding and abetting violence: books on the topic since the 5th century BCE economic disruption: like the printing press copyright theft: printing tech also makes that far easier displaces creativity: this was Socrates' objection to reading and writing misinformation: both techs turboch…

The load-bearing decoder ring? You are absolutely right, let us delve into it!

AI obviously replaces thinking, as can be seen from your comment. No one will refute this point-by-point nonsense.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#95

Post by rayiner »

projektfu wrote: post #87
rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states. This is true in Georgia as well. There has generally been a productive working relationship between the Democratic mayor in Atlanta and the typically republican/conservative democrat governor. That…

Andre Dickens; David Dinkins was mayor of NYC in the late 80s.

Yes, good catch!

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#96

Post by chrisco255 »

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.

A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#97

Post by notahacker »

beeblebok wrote: post #70
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…

There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.

Beyond the info and guidance, there's also the classic sycophantic encouragement. Humans are allowed to publish the Anarchist's Cookbook, but they tend to get into trouble when it becomes "based on your manifesto, I would suggest the following targets". Of course, AI isn't human, and treating a software program like a human probably isn't good law, but OpenAI are very keen to suggest it's legally equivalent to a human when it suits them...

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#98

Post by dylan604 »

megolodan wrote: post #31
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…

Depends if they have a judge in mind to tip the scales

There's definitely one judge in FL that seems to like the current administration

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#99

Post by skinfaxi »

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 law bans things, things aren't illegal by default. What laws does a class about 3d printing guns violate?

Re: Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

#100

Post by pinkmuffinere »

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

I don't really think this is true. You can say "chemtrails aren't real but weather engineering does concerns me". It's just that many (most?) of the people with the concerns are chemtrails people. It's not like non-chemtrails-believers have weaponized the chemtrails-as-a-belief to protect their precious weather engineering. Although that itself is quite a fun conspiracy :).
Post reply on HN