OpenAI’s stated rationale was a concern for the shooter’s privacy, but its own interests
better explain its silence. Upon information and belief, OpenAI was seeking to avoid implementation of a
hard line rule to refer planning of real-world violence to authorities, perhaps due to how frequently its
product is implicated in threats to human life. Requiring such disclosures would be incompatible with the
company’s public position that ChatGPT is safe. It could also threaten the valuation underlying OpenAI’s
anticipated initial public offering. Rather than expose those risks, OpenAI accepted the consequences of
its silence. A mass murder in the only secondary school in Tumbler Ridge followed.
Accordingly, the Crown, led by Attorney General Sharma, and SD59 jointly bring this
action to hold OpenAI and Sam Altman accountable for designing a dangerous product, distributing it to
every home with internet access, ignoring the warnings of their own safety team,
refusing to notify authorities when they knew the shooter was planning gun violence, inviting the shooter back onto the
platform after deactivating the shooter’s account, and choosing corporate self-interest over the lives of
children. They seek compensation for the not just foreseeable but known harm OpenAI inflicted, the
damages that they incurred and are incurring, and injunctive relief to ensure that this tragedy does not
happen again.
Also, unlike the bad old days when 1 in 3 was an informant, now ordinary people aren’t in “informant loop” of providing information on others, so they aren’t thinking about being informed on either.
For non-technical people, it isn't really news, because they already forgot about it after reading it. Maybe they'll be a little more monitored in their own typing for like... a day or two.
One of the hardest lessons to internalize, and keep internalized, as someone who works on and writes software, is the vast, vast, vast majority of the Public doesn't understand even the most basic shit about software. It just does stuff. Hopefully the stuff is good. That's it, beginning, middle, and end.
"Why would you think x would y" is a poor framing. They didn't think about x or y because they don't care. The phone works, that's the beginning and end of their interest in the subject.
I think in part it's selection bias? Like if you're smart enough to get by honestly, you're probably also smart enough to realize getting by honestly is just a way more comfortable way to live. The only reason you'd probably cross that line is because your principals, whatever they may be, conflict with those laws, or your life circumstances are so bad that you have no choice BUT to turn to crime.
And that cuts the other way too: if you're dumb enough to think you'd NEVER get caught for a burglary, for example, you'd probably be way more down to plan and execute one, failing to consider that most thieves aren't caught when they steal the shit, they're caught when they try and sell it later.
Then the AI companies have more confidence that they can move forward in a certain way, and issue investor guidance that is maybe closer to reality.
They want stable rules they can follow, which will limit their liability as long as they stay within them.
They also would like those rules to be as restrictive as possible towards their competitors.
I'm quite sure that if there wasn't the existential threat of a lack of a moat, they would not be pushing for regulations at all.
I see constant ads on video platform (particularly youtube/tiktok) about llm chat apps, from friends, dating, romance and everythkng inbetween; that's personal.
People need to be reminded constantly if they use such apps that they are participating in easier mass surveillance, profiling and AI training.
It wasn't technically feasible to scan personal chats easily, other than grepping keywords which must have had a bajillion false positives. Now you can get everything autoscanned at scale.
Yup. And with zero privacy protections in statute for AI chat, there is nothing to prevent an AI CEO looking to curry political favour from e.g. handing over the private correspondence of an opponent or an entire district’s residents.
I really hope you mean that in an insulting way to the industry and current legal situation, not as an actual solution.
It's more efficient to have one central "verifier" for everything, but the "who watches the watchers"? question basically says: Either constrain by construction, have everyone verify (which are two sides of the same coin, btw, when looking at a "global" thing), or centralize explicitly.
A bot talking to you directly as if its some one real caters to your thoughts and can take you in a certain direction without you realizing it. I have heard first hand experience from people that they feel more comfortable talking to chatgpt or claude cause it gives a feeling of being on their side and listening to them.
As another commenter said, you're not chatting with a friend; you're chatting with Big Tech.
How much do you love Big Brother?
Most people don't realize that it is 99% like posting it on Facebook.
As articles like these show, cloud-based LLMs don't work in your interest today.
It's the other way around, big techs need to properly disclose in their platform, during interaction that they aren't in a private and safe environment
"Anthropic failed to report murderer's threats to authorities"
(or "Chatbot knew man was planning murder, yet company did nothing")
"Anthropic reported private chats to authorities"
(or "Arrested for chatbot fantasy")
To be fair to the journalists in these cases, there's also no society-wide agreed Schelling point about the correct outcome or correct rules. I have strong beliefs and intuitions about what should happen, but other people also have strong beliefs and intuitions, and many of those are probably opposite of mine. Even if my intuitions are the best and most justified, a journalist is unlikely to think "I'm just not going to mention that some people are mad at this company over this outcome, because a hypothetically better norm or principle would support the company's actions here". Hopefully the journalism can at least contextualize the lack of legal or social consensus and the difficult incentive problems, rather than jumping to "obviously companies are sociopaths staffed by supervillains".
Including any chats anywhere where someone might have a phone in their pocket, or if there's a "camera" attached to a utility pole or a nearby tree. The only real private chats might be whispered lying down in the bathtub together, with a mattress covering it like you're both hiding from a hurricane.
> they're chatting with Big Tech
They're chatting with any powerful person who wants to hear it. She thought she was chatting with Anthropic, who doesn't give a shit about her. But after being threatened (and immediately backing down because, of course, they don't give a shit about her) Anthropic has become an arm of the government. So she was chatting with the Bonita Springs, FL Sheriff's office, or anybody else. If I paid enough, Anthropic would tell me about what she was doing so I could sell her laundry detergent.
Somehow humanity survived the past 40 years without Microsoft Word and Excel phoning home and shopping users to the feds at random, I don't see why the standard should be any different for this new class of tooling.
I feel like if people understood what these things actually are there'd be way less of this AI psychosis and similar stuff.
There'd also be fewer people falling for apocalyptic Rationalist delusions.
Also: people need to understand "not your computer, not your data." (Unless it's stored in the cloud but encrypted locally with keys only you possess.) Same goes for storing things unencrypted in OneDrive, Google Drive, etc. There is nothing to stop these companies from bulk scanning, data mining, or reporting people based on whatever request a government gives them. Don't count on them to resist, because they often can't, especially if the request is from a sovereign state where they do business.
There are people with education here that don't fare much better, so I don't know.
Assuming you consider it a "delusion" to have a p(doom) of more than 5% or so, that's not uncommon among frontier lab employees who have a pretty good idea of how LLMs work.
On the other hand, they did put themselves into this position deliberately.
Show me any product, no matter how simple, that has no safety vs utility tradeoff.
For anyone technically inclined it should be obvious, but it isn't part of the zeitgeist or how they pitch it. People see it as being different than talking to a human, and behave as if there won't be a human in the mix.