> how do you propose they run tests on that if each failed run risks sending them to prison?

If you're testing a gun, you don't point it at random people on the street and threaten them. You go to a shooting range.

▲

pingou a day ago | parent [-]

Is there any indication that they didn't go to the shooting range first?

▲

cassianoleal a day ago | parent [-]

Do you think once they finished testing the gun at the range, they should go out on the streets threatening the public?

▲

pingou a day ago | parent [-]

No, but what are you implying? That they should never use the model because it cannot be proven 100% safe?

I agree that it is their responsibility if the model caused damage, they should have had better safeguards, but we do know it will never be 100% safe. It is their duty to minimize the risk. I guess we disagree about whereas this thing is equivalent to shooting people in the face, and to me it looks more like this is just a step above the shooting range, with some preliminary safety work having been done before.

	▲	cassianoleal a day ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe they shouldn't run tests that are not safe and threaten the public? I agree that in this specific case it doesn't seem too terrible but what happens when this ends up causing someone vulnerable to be harassed and commit self-harm? Also note that I never said "shooting people in the face". I only alluded to threatening with the gun. Threatening can in some cases be as bad as actually pulling the trigger. That's how "atomic diplomacy" works.