3 ms·

This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the

by xp84 5mo ago

This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems. If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida? const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolutely right.', 'I agree, let's explore this idea further.', 'This plan is a good idea']; var prompt; var response = "Hello, AI here, how can I help you?"; while (true) { prompt = window.prompt(response); response = platitudes[Math.floor(Math.random() * platitudes.length)]; }

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.
- mrandish 5mo ago
  > Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. Yes, but that only eliminates guns as an example of inherently dangerous products which are legally sold without special exemptions. I think the most constructive response is to consider another example without a special exemption - such as nail guns or rat poison. > They’re the exception that proves the rule. What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? (serious question, I don't know what you mean.) It doesn't prove dangerous products cannot be sold to the general public without a special exemption. The more useful question is: "since very dangerous products CAN be sold to consumers in some cases, is ChatGPT such a product and is this one of the cases." Fortunately, there's a highly evolved body of jurisprudence around product liability and negligence to help us tease out these details. Turns out it depends almost entirely on a combination of niggly details like sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, average user competence, etc. The bottom line is, winning a judgement against OAI in this particular case is probably quite a stretch. But this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things. > this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court I thought so too and then read the complaint. Some excerpts here [1]. I'm not seeing a weak case. (Nor one that won't generate favourable headlines for this AG the whole way through.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561
    - mrandish 5mo ago
      > The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable Uh, okay? But the topic wasn't about guns per se, someone just brought guns up as one example of a dangerous product which can be sold to consumers. They just happened to pick a uniquely poor example due to a special exception. My point was that you seized on the exception to reject that one poor example but never addressed the poster's underlying point. Given HN's community preference to engage in good faith by interpreting other poster's in the most charitable way possible, you could have replied, "Well, guns aren't a good example to support your point due to a unique exception, but... to your point, there are other dangerous products which ARE sold to consumers without special exemptions, so in those cases..." and then added your point or counter-point. I still don't know if you had a point which refutes or even addresses that a lot of very dangerous products are legally sold to consumers, so a product actually being dangerous isn't enough by itself to make OAI guilty of anything. In saying "that proves the rule" you seemed to be implying that without a special exemption like guns have, dangerous products would be liable for any harm they cause - which clearly isn't always the case.
    - parineum 5mo ago
      > The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things. I get why one would think that but I don't think it's actually true. I think the "exception" is actually there because they'll be sued into bankruptcy even though they'd likely win the lawsuits. It's not actually an exemption, it's preventing lawfare.
- lesuorac 5mo ago
  Is this even relevant? I can't sue you for product liability if you strangle me but I can still sue you. Gun manufacturers have been successfully sued for shootings before [1]; who cares if it's about "product liability"? [1]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-makers/ https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-mak...
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > who cares if it's about "product liability"? The Florida AG's case is a product liability claim FFS.
skdb476 5mo ago
Yes if they can prove you knew it would influence atleast a few chimps and released into the wild anyway.
ericfr11 5mo ago
Florida could then be sued because a doctor didn't stop a pregnancy that killed the mother
pton_xd 5mo ago
The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > purpose of a gun is to kill things I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
  - pton_xd 5mo ago
    Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
      - dugidugout 5mo ago
        > a chat bot We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.
        dugidugout 5mo ago
beeblebok 5mo ago
[flagged]
projektfu 5mo ago
It is a little crazy that Florida's politicians want to lay blame for school shootings, which have happened regularly in Florida since long before AI was a thing, although a large number of incidents are not fatal or mass shooting events. Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."
- beering 5mo ago
  See also, video games, dungeons and dragons, etc.
  - BLKNSLVR 5mo ago
    heavy metal music, television, radio, Harry Potter books, females not covered in clothing head to toe, the lack of a good Christian upbringing, rap music, the banning of corporal punishment, being made aware of the existence of homosexuality, sex education in schools, the legalisation of abortion, open borders, a visit to Europe, proximity to wind farms, divorce, witches.
    - projektfu 5mo ago
      Obviously, anyone with 3 or more is a ticking time bomb.
rootsudo 5mo ago
With Alcohol, in Florida, yes.
lelanthran 5mo ago
> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems. I don't think the token providers want the same level of regulation as guns.

by xp84 5mo ago

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.

mrandish 5mo ago
> Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. Yes, but that only eliminates guns as an example of inherently dangerous products which are legally sold without special exemptions. I think the most constructive response is to consider another example without a special exemption - such as nail guns or rat poison. > They’re the exception that proves the rule. What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? (serious question, I don't know what you mean.) It doesn't prove dangerous products cannot be sold to the general public without a special exemption. The more useful question is: "since very dangerous products CAN be sold to consumers in some cases, is ChatGPT such a product and is this one of the cases." Fortunately, there's a highly evolved body of jurisprudence around product liability and negligence to help us tease out these details. Turns out it depends almost entirely on a combination of niggly details like sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, average user competence, etc. The bottom line is, winning a judgement against OAI in this particular case is probably quite a stretch. But this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things. > this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court I thought so too and then read the complaint. Some excerpts here [1]. I'm not seeing a weak case. (Nor one that won't generate favourable headlines for this AG the whole way through.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561
  - mrandish 5mo ago
    > The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable Uh, okay? But the topic wasn't about guns per se, someone just brought guns up as one example of a dangerous product which can be sold to consumers. They just happened to pick a uniquely poor example due to a special exception. My point was that you seized on the exception to reject that one poor example but never addressed the poster's underlying point. Given HN's community preference to engage in good faith by interpreting other poster's in the most charitable way possible, you could have replied, "Well, guns aren't a good example to support your point due to a unique exception, but... to your point, there are other dangerous products which ARE sold to consumers without special exemptions, so in those cases..." and then added your point or counter-point. I still don't know if you had a point which refutes or even addresses that a lot of very dangerous products are legally sold to consumers, so a product actually being dangerous isn't enough by itself to make OAI guilty of anything. In saying "that proves the rule" you seemed to be implying that without a special exemption like guns have, dangerous products would be liable for any harm they cause - which clearly isn't always the case.
  - parineum 5mo ago
    > The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things. I get why one would think that but I don't think it's actually true. I think the "exception" is actually there because they'll be sued into bankruptcy even though they'd likely win the lawsuits. It's not actually an exemption, it's preventing lawfare.
lesuorac 5mo ago
Is this even relevant? I can't sue you for product liability if you strangle me but I can still sue you. Gun manufacturers have been successfully sued for shootings before [1]; who cares if it's about "product liability"? [1]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-makers/ https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-mak...
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > who cares if it's about "product liability"? The Florida AG's case is a product liability claim FFS.

skdb476 5mo ago

Yes if they can prove you knew it would influence atleast a few chimps and released into the wild anyway.

ericfr11 5mo ago

Florida could then be sued because a doctor didn't stop a pregnancy that killed the mother

pton_xd 5mo ago

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> purpose of a gun is to kill things I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
- pton_xd 5mo ago
  Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
    - dugidugout 5mo ago
      > a chat bot We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.
        dugidugout 5mo ago

beeblebok 5mo ago

[flagged]

projektfu 5mo ago

It is a little crazy that Florida's politicians want to lay blame for school shootings, which have happened regularly in Florida since long before AI was a thing, although a large number of incidents are not fatal or mass shooting events. Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."

beering 5mo ago
See also, video games, dungeons and dragons, etc.
- BLKNSLVR 5mo ago
  heavy metal music, television, radio, Harry Potter books, females not covered in clothing head to toe, the lack of a good Christian upbringing, rap music, the banning of corporal punishment, being made aware of the existence of homosexuality, sex education in schools, the legalisation of abortion, open borders, a visit to Europe, proximity to wind farms, divorce, witches.
  - projektfu 5mo ago
    Obviously, anyone with 3 or more is a ticking time bomb.

rootsudo 5mo ago

With Alcohol, in Florida, yes.

lelanthran 5mo ago

> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems. I don't think the token providers want the same level of regulation as guns.