[xp84]

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)];
  }

[JumpCrisscross]

> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability

Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. They’re the exception that proves the rule.

[mrandish]

> Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules.

Yes, but that only eliminates guns as an example of inherently dangerous products which are legally sold without special exemptions. I think the most constructive response is to consider another example without a special exemption - such as nail guns or rat poison.

> They’re the exception that proves the rule.

What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? (serious question, I don't know what you mean.) It doesn't prove dangerous products cannot be sold to the general public without a special exemption. The more useful question is: "since very dangerous products CAN be sold to consumers in some cases, is ChatGPT such a product and is this one of the cases."

Fortunately, there's a highly evolved body of jurisprudence around product liability and negligence to help us tease out these details. Turns out it depends almost entirely on a combination of niggly details like sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, average user competence, etc. The bottom line is, winning a judgement against OAI in this particular case is probably quite a stretch. But this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove?

The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things.

> this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court

I thought so too and then read the complaint. Some excerpts here [1]. I'm not seeing a weak case. (Nor one that won't generate favourable headlines for this AG the whole way through.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561

[parineum]

> The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable for all manner of things.

I get why one would think that but I don't think it's actually true. I think the "exception" is actually there because they'll be sued into bankruptcy even though they'd likely win the lawsuits.

It's not actually an exemption, it's preventing lawfare.

[mrandish]

> The fact that without that exemption, gun manufacturers would be liable

Uh, okay? But the topic wasn't about guns per se, someone just brought guns up as one example of a dangerous product which can be sold to consumers. They just happened to pick a uniquely poor example due to a special exception. My point was that you seized on the exception to reject that one poor example but never addressed the poster's underlying point.

Given HN's community preference to engage in good faith by interpreting other poster's in the most charitable way possible, you could have replied, "Well, guns aren't a good example to support your point due to a unique exception, but... to your point, there are other dangerous products which ARE sold to consumers without special exemptions, so in those cases..." and then added your point or counter-point.

I still don't know if you had a point which refutes or even addresses that a lot of very dangerous products are legally sold to consumers, so a product actually being dangerous isn't enough by itself to make OAI guilty of anything. In saying "that proves the rule" you seemed to be implying that without a special exemption like guns have, dangerous products would be liable for any harm they cause - which clearly isn't always the case.

[lesuorac]

Is this even relevant?

I can't sue you for product liability if you strangle me but I can still sue you.

Gun manufacturers have been successfully sued for shootings before [1]; who cares if it's about "product liability"?

[1]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-mak...

[JumpCrisscross]

> who cares if it's about "product liability"?

The Florida AG's case is a product liability claim FFS.

[projektfu]

It is a little crazy that Florida's politicians want to lay blame for school shootings, which have happened regularly in Florida since long before AI was a thing, although a large number of incidents are not fatal or mass shooting events.

Probably the only response stupider than "Nothing could have prevented this" is "Random thing, other than the mental state of the murderer and the access to firearms, caused this."

[beering]

See also, video games, dungeons and dragons, etc.

[BLKNSLVR]

heavy metal music, television, radio, Harry Potter books, females not covered in clothing head to toe, the lack of a good Christian upbringing, rap music, the banning of corporal punishment, being made aware of the existence of homosexuality, sex education in schools, the legalisation of abortion, open borders, a visit to Europe, proximity to wind farms, divorce, witches.

[projektfu]

Obviously, anyone with 3 or more is a ticking time bomb.

[pton_xd]

The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.

[BLKNSLVR]

The purpose of chat bots is profit (which could well be argued to help a select few people).

Alternative take: The purpose of "thing" is "what it is used for", which is a crude variation of "the purpose of a system is what it does". Reducing it to a single definition is almost always going to be inaccurate.

The way it is used defines it's purpose. The screwdriver was used to open the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. The gun was used to make a hole in the milo tin so the milo could be removed from the tin. Purpose is a per-unique-scenario proposition. The best tool for the job is the one that's available.

To intentionally misquote Arthur Weasley: "What exactly is the purpose of a rubber duck?"

[JumpCrisscross]

> purpose of a gun is to kill things

I’ve fired guns. Never to kill things. I’ve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldn’t endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.

[StilesCrisis]

A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.

[devonkim]

Many gun proponents seem to think of them like most people do knives when knives have many, many domestic purposes beyond killing things that have a life. Same things with cars given there's many things cars can do besides get people and things from place to place.

[BeetleB]

> whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people.

I'm flabbergasted you'd say such a thing.

The purpose of a chat bot is to have an interesting experience with an AI. That it may help you is secondary (and perhaps necessary for the provider to make a profit).

[m463]

Even "purpose" might be anthropomorphizing the chatbot

[BeetleB]

Not at all. A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle.

[JumpCrisscross]

> A hammer has a purpose. So does a knife. So does a bottle.

They each have multiple purposes.

[pton_xd]

Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot

Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.

[dugidugout]

> a chat bot

We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.

[JumpCrisscross]

> suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally

The suit in question doesn't involve any guns. We're obviously having a broader discussion.

[chrisco255]

A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human. There are numerous alternative weapons to use, like using a candlestick in the conservatory or a rope in the lead pipe in the study for example.

[bob1029]

> A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human.

See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.

[vorticalbox]

Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.

[micromacrofoot]

you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose

guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped

you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal

whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal

[JumpCrisscross]

> you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way

I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.

[micromacrofoot]

You're still bristling at the core concept by softening it again. Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Guns are weapons designed to kill, it's their originating and still primary purpose

Original, not primary. At least in America, most guns are not purchased with an intention to kill anything–they're for training. Trying to conclude the morality of a thing from its historic purpose is a bit silly. Particularly within the frame of a novel technology like AI.

[RoddaWallPro]

I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.

[micromacrofoot]

Small arms are one of the greatest scourges of machinery humanity has ever seen. It doesn't matter how many bullets have been fired. Their circulation has, and continues to, cause endless chains of suffering in nearly every corner of the world.

[XorNot]

The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training.

And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either.

And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.

[rurp]

The AI slop accounts that are absolutely flooding social media and are controlled by scammers or propagandists are there to help people?

[lelanthran]

> 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.

I don't think the token providers want the same level of regulation as guns.

[skdb476]

Yes if they can prove you knew it would influence atleast a few chimps and released into the wild anyway.

[ericfr11]

Florida could then be sued because a doctor didn't stop a pregnancy that killed the mother

[rootsudo]

With Alcohol, in Florida, yes.