Isn’t it convenient that nobody understands? How could we possibly regulate something that isn’t understood? It’s like social media all over again. We can’t be responsible for someone else’s content; it’s not us so you can’t penalize us!!

▲

nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Isn’t it convenient that nobody understands? How could we possibly regulate something that isn’t understood?

You mean like the human body? The brain?

▲

GolfPopper 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If LLMs are like humans, then OpenAI and Anthropic are like slave traders.

▲

bix6 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My point is that they are using a similar playbook to avoid taking responsibility.

▲

lukan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Who is not taking responsibility? You think that anaylst that copy pasted AI slob of such a critical information will be rewarded?

	▲	Cthulhu_ 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It just feels like the companies behind AIs are spinning their own poor monitoring and criminal (digital) trespassing into something they can't be held responsible for. Even though they are, of course. In the hugging face incident, Anthropic should pay for damages and a fine for malicious hacking. In this incident, whoever signed off on using the tool, and whoever said the intel was good should both be prosecuted or at the very least reprimanded (whatever the rules for a bad interpretation of intel is) and the tool put on hold.

▲

semiquaver 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

“Convenient” sure sounds like trying to allude to a conspiracy theory. Is that what you’re doing? Why not state your claims or questions directly?