I think the point is intent. Sure, no chance of success to build a reactor. But he created a radiation hazard situation all the same.

If a nuclear engineer enabled and instructed him, would there not be liability for the hazard? If ml is going to be an expert instructor for nuclear, hacking, bio hacking, virus research, do the peddlers of the ai product escape ethical or legal responsibility just because "its an app?"

▲

StableAlkyne an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> If a nuclear engineer enabled and instructed him, would there not be liability for the hazard?

Should the library where he read books about physics also be liable?

	▲	nananana9 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A difference of degree is a difference of kind here. If something previously required years to full-time study to learn, but now you can kind of somewhat stumble your way through it and get somewhat close to the result, you should not disregard that with a snarky one-liner IMO. E.g. look at programming - people who don't know how what a compiler is, are making things that I could only make after a few years into my programming journey. You obviously get the same results in chemistry or nuclear physics or whatever, the models are heavily trained on code in particular, but if there's a chance that we've reduced the ease of committing certain kinds of crime that were previously gate-kept by knowledge, we should know about it.

▲

matheusmoreira 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> If a nuclear engineer enabled and instructed him, would there not be liability for the hazard?

I bet the professional would be able to sate the kid's curiosity safely without creating excessive risks.

I've come across detailed instructions on how to synthesize sarin gas on the internet. Anyone who follows those instructions will probably die horribly. I still thought it was pretty interesting.