Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media.

The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"

So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, they’d just be like “well technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess it’s ok!”

The law doesn’t work like that.

If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable.

Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.

When the repository has large arrows pointing to kill your {var} with customized pamphlets outlining the steps and highlighting mistakes you specifically might make based on your post history I’m betting a judge or jury might consider you an accomplice at that point.

We’re already seeing section 230 protections being defeated in court for targeted feeds, now add itemized instructions on committing felony’s at scale personalized. Hahahahaha. Hope they IPO quickly.

There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.

> Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases,

And they never would be without the lawsuits, so, I don’t feel bad for OpenAI. All of big tech needs a kick in the ass on transparency.