No, that's the level of responsibility they ought to have if they were releasing these models as products. As-is they've used a service model, and should be held to the same standards as if there were a human employee on the other end of the chat interface. Cut through the technical obfuscation. They are 100% responsible for the output of their service endpoints. This isn't a case of making a tool that can be used for good or ill, and it's not them providing some intermediary or messaging service like a forum with multiple human users and limited capacity for moderation. This is a direct consumer to business service. Treating it as anything else will open the floodgates to slapping an "AI" label on anything any organization doesn't want to be held accountable for.

▲

slipperydippery 6 days ago | parent [-]

I like this framing even better.

This is similar to my take on things like Facebook apparently not being able to operate without psychologically destroying moderators. If that’s true… seems like they just shouldn’t operate, then.

If you’re putting up a service that you know will attempt to present itself as being capable of things it isn’t… seems like you should get in a shitload of trouble for that? Like maybe don’t do it at all? Maybe don’t unleash services you can’t constrain in ways that you definitely ought to?

▲

blackqueeriroh 6 days ago | parent [-]

But understand that things like Facebook not operating doesn’t actually make the world any safer. In fact, it makes it less safe, because the same behavior is happening on the open internet and nobody is moderating it.

	▲	drw85 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think this is true anymore. Facebook have gone so far down the 'algorithmic control' rabbit hole, it would most definitely be better if they weren't operating anymore. They destroy people that don't question things with their algorithm driven bubble of misinformation.