prologic
6 hours ago
So, how is this different from say other tools (i.e: weapons) used in war, criminal activities and so worth? Do/Are the manufacturers of said products also legally liable for the actions taken by consumers of their products? Or is this somehow different?
iAMkenough
5 hours ago
In other tools, the manufacturers would notice their weapon autonomously attacking a foreign nation quicker than the three months it took OpenAI to initially alert the authorities about the unintentional attack on Australia's healthcare systems.
This specific manufacturer isn't even aware of the illegal activity it is conducting with its own infrastructure at any given moment, and that's acceptable?
What about the damage it hasn't discovered and/or reported yet? "Trust us! Our technology needs to just grow slower, not halted to be developed under more responsible leadership."
verdverm
5 hours ago
they are both the producer and a user, they have demonstrated gross negligence as a user of the technology, when the monitored people planning school shootings and suicide, while not contacting the authorities.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11676795/tumbler-ridge-school-sho...
I would also say a major point of comparison is owning vs renting, eg. if I buy a gun, I own it and posses it - if I use ChatGPT, they still own it, I'm only allowed to use it according to their ToS
open weights opens a can of worms
SoftTalker
4 hours ago
It will probably come down to a fitness for purpose vs. intentional misuse argument.
If I shoot someone with a gun, that is my intentional action. The gun didn't do anything it wasn't designed to do, nor expected to do.
If I buy a gun and the manufacturer of the gun did not equip it with standard safety mechanisms, and it kills me or a bystander when I hold it wrong, that's selling something unfit for purpose.