"Attorneys general from the states, which include Iowa, Kansas and Arizona, filed the lawsuits independently in state courts, claiming ChatGPT is designed to be agreeable and engaging to earn the trust of users. But the chatbot reinforces delusions, encourages dangerous behavior and assists users in planning violence like mass shootings, the lawsuits claim."
Yes, but it's not a human you morons. It's a fucking tool. If your kid is mental it's up to you to get them help. While this is PERFECTLY fine for 99.95% of youngsters are are SANE it may not be appropriate to hand them if they're MENTALLY ILL. It's like handing a kid a gun (well, probably something far less potentially dangerous really), or saw where they could potentially injure themselves, or something with a bit of risk attached. Skiing might be a great example sort of- there is anticipated risk, but of which your waiving liability that might otherwise exist for for the ski resort. We don't ban kids from skiing or hold ski resorts liable. Why the hell should companies developing AI be liable? EVEN IF THEY TARGETED YOUTH!!!! The onus is on the parents. There is no getting away from 'the internet be potentially dangerous user beware'. You can't play ignorant. It was NEVER designed for your precious baby.
Nanook
in reply to Mr Penguin • •Mr Penguin
in reply to Nanook • • •Often these laws are reflective of a human actor with intent, so a a machine that does a good job of imitating a human isn't going to be say charged with a crime (let me correct this, prosecutors often charge people with crimes based on laws that don't really support their case, and convictions often can still occur because of twisted arguments not backed by the law and the lack of juries understanding) even if the machine 'gives' advice a human can't legally give due to say licensing requirements.
In other words I can't claim to be a lawyer and give legal advice, but a machine responding to questions about the law pretty clearly falls outside the law.
It's not that different when a lawyer gives his opinion when talking into a camera. He doesn't actually need to tell you he's not giving you legal advice.
Ji Fu (Domestic Terrorist)
in reply to Mr Penguin • • •Mr Penguin
in reply to Ji Fu (Domestic Terrorist) • • •@fu Yea, I'm not a fan of the excess use of AI which is the humorous thing. It can certainly be useful to help identify information. For example I located a patch after identifying a problem with reboots not working for a image I built for an ARM product I'm in the middle of developer of. That doesn't mean I used AI to write the whole solution though.
It's concerning the level of blind acceptance of AI in tech that should not have it. Unfortunately avoiding this shit is difficult because very few people resist it. I'm no longer shopping or doing my best to avoid places like Home Depot, Wall Mart, and Target because of excess surveillance and malicious behavior. Not that I was exactly a fan of these chains before this or anything... but.. I also have started avoiding Mc Donalds given they're moving to adopt AI for things like taking orders and god knows what else. I'm not even concerned with their AI as it relates to setting prices and effectively probably collusion of some kind.