> Seeing as we can’t sanction the model itself, our options are the provider or the user. A third option, and I would argue the right one, is to sanction the c

> Seeing as we can’t sanction the model itself, our options are the provider or the user. A third option, and I would argue the right one, is to sanction the company providing the model. By making it available to customers, they're implying it is at least moderately fit for purpose. It is not remotely reasonable to expect an everyday, normal human to be aware of how LLMs really work, since the _experts_ argue about that very point, and many say we don't know. So, what's actually reasonable is to hold the model creators and providers responsible for releasing a tool that has demonstrably violated the law when not asked to do so. I can already see the replies coming in saying "Well then what are OpenAI and Anthropic supposed to do? No one knows how to fully solve this." They should stop irresponsibly pushing flagrantly unready programs as "artificial intelligence," take responsibility for the rain of shit they've unleashed on the world, and either shut down or go back to basic research until they've demonstrated techniques that reliably (provably?) prevent releasing misaligned superhackers on the world. Unfeasible? What a shame. Maybe Altman and Amodei shouldn't have accepted checks from VCs when they didn't have working, _reliable_ POCs.