Remix.run Logo
xp84 2 hours ago

This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems.

If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?

  const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolutely right.', 'I agree, let's explore this idea further.', 'This plan is a good idea'];

  var prompt;
  var response = "Hello, AI here, how can I help you?";
  while (true) {
    prompt = window.prompt(response);
    response = platitudes[Math.floor(Math.random() * platitudes.length)];
  }
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability

Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.

projektfu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is a little crazy that Florida's politicians want to lay blame for school shootings, which have happened regularly in Florida since long before AI was a thing, although a large number of incidents are not fatal or mass shooting events.

Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."

beering 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

See also, video games, dungeons and dragons, etc.

pton_xd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> purpose of a gun is to kill things

I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.

StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.

BeetleB an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people.

I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing.

The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).

m463 a few seconds ago | parent [-]

Even "purpose" might be anthropomorphizing the chatbot

pton_xd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.

chrisco255 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.

bob1029 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

> A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human.

See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot

Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.

vorticalbox an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.

micromacrofoot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose

guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped

you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal

whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal

JumpCrisscross 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way

I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.

micromacrofoot 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You're still bristling at the core concept by softening it again. Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose.

4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
RoddaWallPro an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.

XorNot an hour ago | parent [-]

The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training.

And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either.

And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.

ericfr11 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Florida could then be sued because a doctor didn't stop a pregnancy that killed the mother

skdb476 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes if they can prove you knew it would influence atleast a few chimps and released into the wild anyway.

beeblebok an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]