I would say no. Someone with the knowledge and motivation to do those things is far less likely to be overly influenced by the output and if they were they are much more aware of what exactly they are doing with regard to using the model.

▲ Pedro_Ribeiro 6 days ago | parent [-]

So if a hypothetical open source enthusiast who fell in love with GPT-OSS and killed his real wife because the AI told him to should only be himself held accountable, where as if it were GPT-5 commanding him to commit the same crime, it would extend into OpenAI's responsability?

Your logic sounds reasonable in theory but on paper it's a slippery slope and hard to define objectively.

On a broader note I believe governments regulating what goes in an AI model is a path to hell paved with good intentions.

I suspect your suggestion will be how it ends up in Europe and get rejected in the US.

▲ novok 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

After a certain point, people are responsible for what they do when they see certain words, especially words they know to be potentially inaccurate, fictional and have a lot of time to consider the actual reality of. A book is not responsible for people doing bad things, they are themselves.

AI models are similar IMO, and unlike fiction books are often clearly labeled as such, repeatedly. At this point if you don't know if an AI model is inaccurate and do something seriously bad, you should probably be a ward of the state.

▲

idle_zealot 6 days ago | parent [-]

> At this point if you don't know if an AI model is inaccurate and do something seriously bad, you should probably be a ward of the state.

You either think too highly of people, or too lowly of them. In any case, you're advocating for interning about 100 million individuals.

	▲	novok 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was a joke

▲ teiferer 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> On a broader note I believe governments regulating what goes in an AI model is a path to hell paved with good intentions.

That's not an obvious conclusion. One could make the same argument with physical weapons. "Regulating weapons is a path to hell paved with good intentions. Yesterday it was assault rifles, today it's hand guns and tomorrow it's your kitchen knife they are coming for." Europe has strict laws on guns, but everybody has a kitchen knife and lots of people there don't feel they live in hell. The U.S. made a different choice, and I'm not arguing that it's worse there (though many do, Europeans and even Americans), but it's certainly not preventing a supposed hell that would have broken out had guns in private hands been banned.

▲ 1718627440 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's why you have this:

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

If it would be fit for a purpose, then it's on the producer for ensuring it actually does. We have laws to prevent anyone from declaring their goods aren't fit for a particular purpose.