[OutOfHere]

It does not pass the "friend test" in that if a human friend were to make such comments instead of ChatGPT making them, the human friend would be within his free speech rights to have made them. As such, I don't see any valid legal issue here affecting ChatGPT that should stand in court. I see possible ethical and objectivity issues, but not a valid legal issue.

[calcifer]

> It does not pass the "friend test" [...] not a valid legal issue.

What legal doctrine is that, and can you point towards precedent? Or is it one of those "I feel like the law should" situations?

[OutOfHere]

Yes, it is called free speech, as is already duly noted in my parent comment which you may read again. In fact, the responsibility to note a legal doctrine of wrongdoing is entirely yours.

[layer8]

That’s not what free speech means.

[OutOfHere]

Free speech absolutely does allow assigning blame, whether correctly or incorrectly. It also allows suggesting criminal action at some point in the future, just not imminently.

[o_nate]

It depends on the specifics of what was said. As the complaint states, OpenAI has yet to release the full transcripts.