2 ms·
but not the gun manufacturers
by BorisMelnik 1mo ago
but not the gun manufacturers
- josefresco 1mo agoWasn't it both in this case? The gun maker, when testing their gun, shot someone.
- 1659447091 1mo agoWhen it is the gun they make that is itself responsible, yes. See Sig Sauer P320 malfunction or lawsuits[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits
- inigyou 1mo agoThere are known standards for how a gun should perform. This probably wouldn't go the same for LLMs, since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable.
- 1659447091 1mo ago> since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable "anyone" is doing a lot of work there, also what is "a serious manner"? There are plenty of people who use it quite a lot and end up in a mental health crisis, sometimes from trying to use it to solve a mental health crisis; or find themselves in something equivalent to people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes and all the fallout that causes in their lives. You may understand why it is not a good idea to use them that way, I may too, but I think you underestimate the general populations (outside HN) misunderstanding of LLMs, especially in light of the marketing stunts these companies themselves pull.