5 ms·

When you are worth hundreds of billions, people start falling over themselves running to file lawsuits against you. We're already seeing this happen. So spendi

When you are worth hundreds of billions, people start falling over themselves running to file lawsuits against you. We're already seeing this happen. So spending $50M to fund a team to weed out "food for crazies" becomes a no-brainer.

echelon 7mo ago
It's so shameful. We let people buy kitchen knives. But because the kitchen knife companies don't have billions of dollars, we don't go after them. We go after the LLM that might have given someone bad diet advice or made them feel sad. Nevermind the huge marketing budget spent on making people feel inadequate, ugly, old, etc. That does way more harm than tricking an LLM into telling you you can cook with glue.
- gmac 7mo ago
  I don’t feel like that’s a reasonable analogy. Kitchen knives don’t purport to give advice. But if a kitchen knife came with a label that said ‘ideal for murdering people’, I expect people would go after the manufacturer.
- mattjoyce 7mo ago
  Ad companies prompt injecting consumers. LLM companies countering with guardrails.
goosejuice 7mo ago
It is a no brainer. If a company of any size is putting out a product that caused cancer we wouldn't think twice about suing them. Why should mental health disorders be any different?
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  I think a more apt analogy would be suing a vaccine manufacturer after it gave you adverse effects, when you also knew you were high risk before that.
- bojan 7mo ago
  There are many, many companies out there putting out products that cause cancer. Think about alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engines, just to name a few most obvious examples.
  - fineIllregister 7mo ago
    > alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engine Yes, the companies providing these products are sued a lot and are heavily regulated, too.
    - ChadNauseam 7mo ago
      If you get cancer from drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or breathing particles emitted by ICE engines in their standard course of operation, you generally can't sue the manufacturer.
      - nozzlegear 7mo ago
        Notably, that's because they include warning labels telling you not to do those things because they're known to cause cancer.
        ChadNauseam 7mo ago
        That's just not true. Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. There's no label that says it causes cancer. (Maybe in california because of prop 65?) And I expect cars also have no such labelling, not that it would matter, considering they cause cancer in random passers by who have no opportunity to consent to breathing in auto exhaust or read any labels
        nozzlegear 7mo ago
        > Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. I'm a teetotaler so no, I literally have not. I was mostly thinking about cigarette and tobacco products which are the most glaring, obvious counterpoints. But you'll be happy to learn that virtually all vehicles in the US also come with operating manuals that profusely warn people not to breathe in the exhaust from the vehicle.
- arcanemachiner 7mo ago
  Why stop there? We could jam up the system prompt with all kinds of irrelevant guardrails to prevent harm to groups X, Y, and Z!
  - nozzlegear 7mo ago
    This but unironically. Preventing harm is good, actually.
    - salad-tycoon 7mo ago
      Because it dumbs everything down, makes the output quality worse and more expensive, and removes personal agency and is dehumanizing. Plus, does it actually prevent harm, do we have evidence? Finally, what is often missed is what if an actual good is decided harmful or something that is harmful is decided by AI company board XYZ to be “good”? I think censorship is bad because of that danger. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who will watch the watchers). Instead of throwing ourselves into that minefield of moral hazard, we should be lifting each other up to the tops of our ability and not infantilizing / secretly propagandizing each other. Well, ideally at least.
      - goosejuice 7mo ago
        There's enough evidence that Anthropic would be liable if they didn't make a reasonable effort to do something about it. Look, I get where you're coming from, partially. I generally believe we should make an effort to maximize individual liberty. But in this case, were talking about severe bodily harm and the death of young adults. We've spent the last decade dealing with the chaos and general unwellness has brought to our societies. This isn't much different. What are you giving up here where such sacrifices are worth it? Can you measure it? What's the utility? There's room for models trained for non consumer purposes, further age restriction etc but shit is moving so fast. If there are actual needs for a less censored model these can be addressed. > Finally, what is often missed is what if an actual good is decided harmful or something that is harmful is decided by AI company board XYZ to be “good”? This is just standard product liability and consumer protection. Companies who do nothing to protect their consumers from known harms are liable. Are you saying you think that's somehow bad for society?

echelon 7mo ago

It's so shameful. We let people buy kitchen knives. But because the kitchen knife companies don't have billions of dollars, we don't go after them. We go after the LLM that might have given someone bad diet advice or made them feel sad. Nevermind the huge marketing budget spent on making people feel inadequate, ugly, old, etc. That does way more harm than tricking an LLM into telling you you can cook with glue.

gmac 7mo ago
I don’t feel like that’s a reasonable analogy. Kitchen knives don’t purport to give advice. But if a kitchen knife came with a label that said ‘ideal for murdering people’, I expect people would go after the manufacturer.
mattjoyce 7mo ago
Ad companies prompt injecting consumers. LLM companies countering with guardrails.

goosejuice 7mo ago

It is a no brainer. If a company of any size is putting out a product that caused cancer we wouldn't think twice about suing them. Why should mental health disorders be any different?

WarmWash 7mo ago
I think a more apt analogy would be suing a vaccine manufacturer after it gave you adverse effects, when you also knew you were high risk before that.
bojan 7mo ago
There are many, many companies out there putting out products that cause cancer. Think about alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engines, just to name a few most obvious examples.
- fineIllregister 7mo ago
  > alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engine Yes, the companies providing these products are sued a lot and are heavily regulated, too.
  - ChadNauseam 7mo ago
    If you get cancer from drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or breathing particles emitted by ICE engines in their standard course of operation, you generally can't sue the manufacturer.
    - nozzlegear 7mo ago
      Notably, that's because they include warning labels telling you not to do those things because they're known to cause cancer.
      - ChadNauseam 7mo ago
        That's just not true. Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. There's no label that says it causes cancer. (Maybe in california because of prop 65?) And I expect cars also have no such labelling, not that it would matter, considering they cause cancer in random passers by who have no opportunity to consent to breathing in auto exhaust or read any labels
        nozzlegear 7mo ago
        > Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. I'm a teetotaler so no, I literally have not. I was mostly thinking about cigarette and tobacco products which are the most glaring, obvious counterpoints. But you'll be happy to learn that virtually all vehicles in the US also come with operating manuals that profusely warn people not to breathe in the exhaust from the vehicle.
arcanemachiner 7mo ago
Why stop there? We could jam up the system prompt with all kinds of irrelevant guardrails to prevent harm to groups X, Y, and Z!
- nozzlegear 7mo ago
  This but unironically. Preventing harm is good, actually.
  - salad-tycoon 7mo ago
    Because it dumbs everything down, makes the output quality worse and more expensive, and removes personal agency and is dehumanizing. Plus, does it actually prevent harm, do we have evidence? Finally, what is often missed is what if an actual good is decided harmful or something that is harmful is decided by AI company board XYZ to be “good”? I think censorship is bad because of that danger. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who will watch the watchers). Instead of throwing ourselves into that minefield of moral hazard, we should be lifting each other up to the tops of our ability and not infantilizing / secretly propagandizing each other. Well, ideally at least.
    - goosejuice 7mo ago
      There's enough evidence that Anthropic would be liable if they didn't make a reasonable effort to do something about it. Look, I get where you're coming from, partially. I generally believe we should make an effort to maximize individual liberty. But in this case, were talking about severe bodily harm and the death of young adults. We've spent the last decade dealing with the chaos and general unwellness has brought to our societies. This isn't much different. What are you giving up here where such sacrifices are worth it? Can you measure it? What's the utility? There's room for models trained for non consumer purposes, further age restriction etc but shit is moving so fast. If there are actual needs for a less censored model these can be addressed. > Finally, what is often missed is what if an actual good is decided harmful or something that is harmful is decided by AI company board XYZ to be “good”? This is just standard product liability and consumer protection. Companies who do nothing to protect their consumers from known harms are liable. Are you saying you think that's somehow bad for society?