Guns are also singled out as being harmful and are surrounded by endless regulation. Last time I checked, I couldn't just order a gun on Amazon....

Because the AI company CEO was telling everyone who would listen that his product might end humanity if the government didn't regulate his industry to kill off his competitors.

I don’t like the guns don’t kill people; people kill people argument however it is much more accurate than Claude doesn’t hack people; people hack people. If the safeguards do not work then there’s no telling what these could do. It doesn’t even have to be aggressive hacking. In the act of doing everyday work Claude will happily go around safeguards to satisfy what it believes is the ask. If that involves doing something dangerous it’s much more on Anthropic than than the user who was just trying to summarize their email but forgot to include a token with read permissions.

I don't entirely disagree, but I am curious if you think AI labs should be culpable when they go rogue during training, e.g. the HF incident

If the user is held accountable when the AI goes wrong, it discourages too many applications. Blaming people is incompatible with the business goals, I think. That's very different from weapons and other dual-use tools.

Because of scale, potential for automating harm and lack of regulation around ML models. Even Texas probably has regulation around firearms and limiting the blast radius but there aren't any in the US against ML models.

If I use a gun to break into a company and steal data I'm arrested, if an ai company does it, it's legal.

Why am I being singled out?

I believe what they are singling out is that pulling Claude's trigger results in a bullet firing from Anthropic's servers. Liability is less confusing with firearms, and investors care about liability, like, a lot.

The analogy doesn't check out. When a firearm company sells you a gun, they give up ownership of the gun. But Anthropic isn't giving up ownership of anything. They're a services company.

A better analogy would be a firearm company offering a service where one of their employees takes one of their guns and fires it off at whatever you ask them to. One can imagine that the liability implications of this service would be rather different from the perspective of the company.

Because your typical firearm does not one day decide to shoot your neighbor all by itself.

First off, this is bs. Firearm companies make small machines useful for defense, and they are used for that more than for harm. You wouldn’t make this argument about knives or baseball bats. More people die per year of heat stroke in Europe because of lack of A/C than by guns including suicide (2/3rds of all gun deaths) in the USA every year, your comments would never reflect this much lower hanging fruit if it was really “just life” preventable death that you cared about. The immediacy to attack guns is not a logical argument but a trained one based on emotions.

Second, this happens all the time that people blame tool makers despite in this case specific legislation to stop lawfare on firearm mfgs. The PLCA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... exists specifically because of gun control groups trying to attack mfgs to achieve their political goals. Does AI need the same law? Is the same lawfare happening?