Claims in the lawsuit seem sketchy, and I don't think they will win.

It is probably not true that ChatGPT has resulted in an increase in murders and suicides, and certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this. It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth".

But I also don't think they expect to win. They just want to show that they're doing something to fight tech companies and AI.

This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems.

If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?

  const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolutely right.', 'I agree, let's explore this idea further.', 'This plan is a good idea'];

  var prompt;
  var response = "Hello, AI here, how can I help you?";
  while (true) {
    prompt = window.prompt(response);
    response = platitudes[Math.floor(Math.random() * platitudes.length)];
  }

While I generally lean toward the AI skeptical side, at least for more extreme claims on near-term LLM capability, growth and time frames, I'm not at all a fan of this. It seems like political grandstanding and unlikely to net much in the way of meaningful harm reduction.

If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.

It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag.

Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible.

Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, banning data centers and taking on populist anti-tech positions that Texas wouldn't dare (because they want the investment).

I have to wonder if settling on the term "AI" for these tools has caused the average person to overestimate the capabilities of them. Anyone in tech and tech-adjacent industries knows the difference and that we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI. And that a true AGI is not possible with this technology.

Would this lawsuit even be a thing?

That and DeSantis is probably still eyeing a presidential run in 2028 and this will win him some points with his base. This lawsuit is absurd.

Lawmakers love these stupid, symbolic doomed-to-fail lawsuits. There are real problems, but it would be nice if someone did something other than posture and virtue-signal.

Seems like a very bad precedent if that were to become the legal interpretation. I can understand if there were requirements for AI companies to document their efforts to reduce harms in their model reports, but ultimately this is a general intelligence (to which degree you can debate) and it's part of its purpose and utility to be able to converse naturally.

Of course it should steer people away from harmful thoughts like any sensible human would, but that's all you can do, really.

I don't want my loved ones to kill themselves if they happen to be susceptible to AI psychosis and suggestibility

I don't see the state's involvement in that

Funny that they are not suing Google, xAI, Amazon or Anthropic? Seems to be politically driven given that Musk has a beef with Altman.

It's fine ya'll... they'll get a call from their real Leader tonight. It's complete political grandstanding so someone can get their name in the news and on the phone with someone more important.

> The suit contends that ChatGPT poses risks to children and is responsible for a “litany of harms,” including addiction and aiding and abetting mass shootings and suicide

Can't wait for them to sue the NRA next!

if state level ai lawsuits become a trend the compliance costs alone will push smaller players out of the market. openai can afford lawyers, most startups cant

Classic oh we ran out of money lets sue to cover our issues, because its always the software's fault.

The powers that be are concerned about AI disrupting all the corruption.

The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like

  aiding and abetting violence: books on the topic since the 5th century BCE
  economic disruption: like the printing press
  copyright theft: printing tech also makes that far easier
  displaces creativity: this was Socrates' objection to reading and writing
  misinformation: both techs turbocharge all info, correct or not
  environmental impact: e.g. deforestation
  amplifies bias: this is a common purpose of writing things down  
  atrophy of skills: Socrates said reading would damage memory skills
  concentration of power: writing was tightly controlled by powerful interests for their leverage and protection

Unless you also want to roll back writing and reading, the starting point for critiques of AI should be the differences in threat between it and writing. A difference in magnitude is a minimum. If you also think that writing was a mistake, I honor your consistency.

> Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit on Monday against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the AI startup’s ChatGPT is unsafe and that the company misled the public about associated risks. The suit contends that ChatGPT poses risks to children and is responsible for a “litany of harms,” including addiction and aiding and abetting mass shootings and suicide. It seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of the state’s unfair trade practice, product liability, public nuisance and negligence laws.

Reverend Doctor Robert Evans had a few episodes on Behind the Bastards this last month about how AI chatbots seem to sometimes create cult-like dynamics with their users. I don't know how this argument will fare in court, but I don't know if this is necessarily wrong.

Open AI has a responsibility if they're aware of the lack of guardrails their product has, especially in the mental health market.

Ah, yes, from the state that brought us this official website: https://stopchemtrails.com/

AI is a liability issue waiting to happen --- and the examples just keep coming.

Sam Altman has been running a personal PR campaign against himself for three years now. It’s tremendously popular to take pot shots at him, which means launching an investigation or lawsuit against OpenAI is probably politically expedient even if it goes nowhere.

This is so dumb. Welcome to the age of zero accountability.

Someone forgot to bribe someone.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[dead]

undefined

[flagged]

Dude, yes. That is a precedent I want to see established.

[flagged]

It's better that kids be harmed than the government starts intervening with regulation.

Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.