> alleging that the company knowingly released and aggressively marketed ChatGPT to the public—including to children—while concealing serious risks, suppressing internal safety warnings, and deceiving Floridians about the true nature and dangers of the product.
You can argue about whether a lawsuit is how this should be handled, but these are all easily-supported allegations.
Companies don’t have a “first amendment right” to be dishonest or to sell things which are harmful. Tobacco companies used to make all sorts of claims in their ads and nobody held that they had a magical free speech right to ignore risks their own researchers were well aware of.
but wrt. the points of the law suite it is already regulated, that is why there is a law suite
think about it, it would be absurd if you had to redefine deceptive, misleading or negligent business practices for every single kind of product anew.
So instead they define it once, in a generic way. But companies tend to try to knowingly stretch and often outright breach this generic definitions in hope to lawyer bs themself out of it. And sadly they do too often succeed to at least avoid keeping to the law during the initial marked capture :(. This is a huge problem, but not suing and nit picking regulating everything again and again and again for each new kind of product would make this problem _way_ worse.
This doesn't mean that regulations which "clarify" what this means for a specific field/product would not be desirable. They are a very desired improvement IMHO. But not because companies would then keep to the law, they make more money by ignoring it, but to cut down cost/time when suing for a breach ...
Or to put it differently, most countries do require companies to act non-negligent _as most fundamental baseline_ (through many different laws/regulations), if you very clearly do act negligent or even malicious/deceptive then you can't complain if they sue.
"The civil complaint alleges that OpenAI and Altman prioritized speed to market and commercial gain over user safety, disregarded repeated warnings from experts both inside and outside the company, and deployed a product that facilitates and encourages harm—including self-harm and violence—while falsely assuring users it was safe. "
Somebody think of the children!!
Raise your hand if you belive Attorney General James Uthmeier recently received a free Tesla.
> alleging that the company knowingly released and aggressively marketed ChatGPT to the public—including to children—while concealing serious risks, suppressing internal safety warnings, and deceiving Floridians about the true nature and dangers of the product.
You can argue about whether a lawsuit is how this should be handled, but these are all easily-supported allegations.
A lawsuit is basically the only real thing you can do.
So? They have a first amendment right to market their products.
Companies don’t have a “first amendment right” to be dishonest or to sell things which are harmful. Tobacco companies used to make all sorts of claims in their ads and nobody held that they had a magical free speech right to ignore risks their own researchers were well aware of.
[dead]
The ulterior motive may well be getting access to, well, everyone's LLM conversations through the discovery process.
This feels... excessive. If you wanna regulate AI then regulate AI. This is what Congress is for no? Just seems like a weird way to go about this.
but wrt. the points of the law suite it is already regulated, that is why there is a law suite
think about it, it would be absurd if you had to redefine deceptive, misleading or negligent business practices for every single kind of product anew.
So instead they define it once, in a generic way. But companies tend to try to knowingly stretch and often outright breach this generic definitions in hope to lawyer bs themself out of it. And sadly they do too often succeed to at least avoid keeping to the law during the initial marked capture :(. This is a huge problem, but not suing and nit picking regulating everything again and again and again for each new kind of product would make this problem _way_ worse.
This doesn't mean that regulations which "clarify" what this means for a specific field/product would not be desirable. They are a very desired improvement IMHO. But not because companies would then keep to the law, they make more money by ignoring it, but to cut down cost/time when suing for a breach ...
Or to put it differently, most countries do require companies to act non-negligent _as most fundamental baseline_ (through many different laws/regulations), if you very clearly do act negligent or even malicious/deceptive then you can't complain if they sue.
Ideally, yes. Currently Congress is just a rubber stamp for the president who has been suitably bribed into being an AI booster
Regulation is forward looking.
How do you hold people accountable for reckless behavior in the past?
"The civil complaint alleges that OpenAI and Altman prioritized speed to market and commercial gain over user safety, disregarded repeated warnings from experts both inside and outside the company, and deployed a product that facilitates and encourages harm—including self-harm and violence—while falsely assuring users it was safe. "
Somebody think of the children!!
Raise your hand if you belive Attorney General James Uthmeier recently received a free Tesla.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358667
ANother fake lawsuit to pump up the price and make the company seem reliable and stable before the IPO?