| ▲ | boringg 4 hours ago | |
In this example you are describing the company that drives the vehicle, not the company that makes the rebar. OpenAI is the one who made the rebar, but not necessarily the one driving the vehicle. I get your point though. | ||
| ▲ | RunSet 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> OpenAI is the one who made the rebar, but not necessarily the one driving the vehicle. More like the company that sells defective ratchet straps. "Drive faster! You don't want to be left behind!" | ||
| ▲ | breakwaterlabs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
In almost all of these cases, it is both: the labs are operating the agents, while developing them, and committing their CFAA felonies in the process. | ||
| ▲ | surgical_fire 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Just to drive the point home, in the real world, if the rebar fell because of lack of quality control, the company that made it would be responsible. If it was for lack of maintenance, the driver would be responsible. The language of a rogue rebar is as absurd as the language of rogue agents. OpenAI is horribly negligent, and in a sane world its administrators should be facing legal consequences. | ||