If a company advertised an LLM as perfectly safe and then it caused some damage, there would be a case against the company.

Have you used LLM tooling? It comes with warnings and explains that the user accepts the risk. Different levels of warning are supplied for the different levels of autonomy you can enable. The user has to understand the risk as they enable it.

This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.

▲

autoexec 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's not new to LLM companies, but it does seem like they're leaning away from the standard "Hey, don't blame us if this doesn't work" and are moving into "It's now your fault any time our software fucks something up" which feels new.

▲

chrisjj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented.

I don't recall any prior computer software working so badly that it needed a disclaimer like "Claude is AI and can make mistakes" on its front page. Let alone one so costly.

▲

Aurornis 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Every piece of software comes with giant disclaimers like this.

You’ve just been clicking past them.

This really isn’t new.

▲

mhjkl an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You must not use any open source software, because much of it comes with a whole paragraph of ”IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY“

▲

eastbound 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This sentence only exists to offset law (or case law) have gave damage rights to anyone.

▲

rrr_oh_man an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That would be fine if Claude was open source and/or unpaid

▲

rcxdude 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

If you read the fine print of most commercial software you'll see some language to a similar effect. When's the last time Microsoft got sued due to an outage caused by a bug in Windows?

	▲	chrisjj 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]