If Glocks started going off on their own during the manufacturing process, leaving bullet holes in the buildings around them, you can be sure that the factory would get in trouble.
replyThis isn't even "an openai customer tried to hack someone", which can be defended. This is the AI companies themselves fucking around.
What do you see as the negligence angle for the gun makers here?
replyI don't see an all encompassing one but I could see similar arguments being made in a courtroom around high capacity magazines. (I'm not saying I think the analogy is perfect, but there has been plenty of of lobbying that has stifled - to some - sensible gun regulation that could help reduce the severity of mass shootings. I still mostly fall on the side of the individual doing the action bearing mostly all of the responsibility but if the product you build makes it too easy to do awful things, I think there is some responsibility to go around.
replyA better analogy may have been the troubles Meta has faced around child protections on their platforms. Technically the abuse and problems have stemmed from individuals too, but they've in many respects enabled the situation by failing to moderate or flag warning signs. OpenAI is failing to moderate the models in similar ways.
Remember that these systems still operate as infrastructure inside the companies.
replyIf new weapons still operating inside any of these companies spew a million bullets on my house, they are still liable. Humans are setting these system up and they still have to behave responsibly.
[flagged]
reply