7 ms·

Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks

268 points by cyunker 4mo ago

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-sued-by-floridas-attorney-general-over-ai-harms-8a5113a8?st=Gcpn84&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-sued-by-floridas-attorney... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/florida-sues-openai-sam-altman-saying-put-profit-safety-rcna347602 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/florida-sues-openai-s...

blitzar 4mo ago
Someone forgot to bribe someone.
newaccountman2 4mo ago
[flagged]
tim-tday 4mo ago
Dude, yes. That is a precedent I want to see established.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
jqpabc123 4mo ago
AI is a liability issue waiting to happen --- and the examples just keep coming.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
bpodgursky 4mo ago
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).
- spamizbad 4mo ago
  Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals and Florida is a hub for non-college retirees
  - mcmcmc 4mo ago
    > Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals Becoming? This has been true for decades in the urban areas
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals Source? It’s been an open secret in academia and medicine that professors [1] and doctors [2] are fleeing Texas’s political climate. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-university-political-climate-survey/ https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-univer... [2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gynecology-abortion-survey/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gyn...
    - nailer 4mo ago
      [1] is incredibly vague. Professors of what specifically? Computer science? Feminist theory? The second doesn't produce 'educated professionals'.
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > [1] is incrcredibly vague I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research aren’t exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy. Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
      - kxkdkeisuxbsn 4mo ago
kelseyfrog 4mo ago
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.
- lazyasciiart 4mo ago
  If you will never interact with or rely on people who are currently children, then that's plausible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to live that way, so your suggestion is not really under consideration.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > or parents should parent their kids Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kids’ interest.
  - kelseyfrog 4mo ago
    Parents should: Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1]. Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2]. Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3]. Not have had children in the first place[4]. Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5]. Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6]. Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7]. I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884 5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303 6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531 7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754
Legend2440 4mo ago
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.
- nailer 4mo ago
  > certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.
  - Legend2440 4mo ago
    Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media. The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"
    - calmworm 4mo ago
      If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable. Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.
      - ericfr11 4mo ago
        Not different than YouTube or Reddit
        calmworm 4mo ago
lenerdenator 4mo ago
> 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.
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
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.
- mrandish 4mo ago
  I suspect the plan here is to grandstand on this suit through the election cycle and then settle for a token $20M or $40M fine (payable to the state attorney general's office) and a jointly negotiated consent decree mandating vague rules which mirror the internal policies OAI has already adopted to shield themselves from liability. It's all politics, optics and 'governance theater'.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > suspect the plan here is to grandstand on this suit through the election cycle Why? There is no incentive to go easy on OpenAI. (Short of Altman stepping down, which he won't.) > It's all politics, optics This was my initial reaction. Some excerpts from the complaint [1]. The facts are pretty bad. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561
    - mrandish 4mo ago
      > The facts are pretty bad. The facts alleged in initial complaints usually do look pretty bad. But the causes of action which are still standing after summary judgement and discovery tend to look a lot less bad. So I tend to heavily discount, if not outright dismiss, the facts alleged in initial complaints. But I'm jaded having seen too many damning alleged facts evaporate before trial. To be clear, I'm no fan of OAI or Altman. I think Altman, Brockman et al did pretty much subvert a non-profit. Unfortunately, I also think the OAI's board (past and recent) screwed up in a series of remarkably bone-headed ways which allowed Altman, Brockman, et al to get away with it. It's ironic that some of OAI's board members most aligned with the EA (Effective Altruism) movement ended up being so ineffective in fulfilling the governance duties of a non-profit board member. But the fact OAI is run by dudes who could have been sent by central casting for the role of "Smarmy Asshole Tech Bro #1 & #2" nor that ChatGPT said unimaginably horrific things to vulnerable people, fulfills ALL the prongs of each test required to get a conviction on these causes of action. Even if ChatGPT literally gave Hitler a detailed plan and an upbeat "Okay, let's do this!" to executing the actual Holocaust, that's still just the first prong. And hitting the first prong a million times harder doesn't move any of the other required prongs even a bit. Even in cases where the accused is obviously guilty, proving all the required prongs beyond a reasonable doubt can still be very hard. It's going to come down to a bunch of the details I mentioned in my other reply to you 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. In short, it's not enough that the 'product' actually caused horrific things. IANAL and I don't know Florida liability law but, in broad strokes, cases like this need to prove that an average reasonable person would clearly know these exact bad things were likely to happen based on what OAI knew at the time, and that OAI had an express duty to prevent those things, and was directly negligent in fulfilling those duties and knew they were negligent. Each of those involve nuanced situational judgements based on a lot of facts and timing not yet in evidence and if just one of them isn't quite provable beyond a reasonable doubt enough to convince 100% of a Florida jury, the whole case can fail. LLM chatbots being so new and unknown creates a lot of reasonable doubt for the prosecution to overcome. That's why I'm confident the prosecution has no desire to actually try this case.
delichon 4mo ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
  - delichon 4mo ago
    Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already So has toothpaste. I’m really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.
- 238172 4mo ago
xp84 4mo ago
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 4mo ago
  > 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 4mo ago
    > 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.
Crontab 4mo ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk Did you follow up on that by looking for any money links between Musk and this AG?
mrandish 4mo ago
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.
- LastTrain 4mo ago
  Agree, I would much rather see meaningful and powerful regulatory action instead of silly lawsuits.
  - mrandish 4mo ago
    Indeed. Prosecution under consumer protection law in court is a poor substitute for well-considered legislation or regulation. Creating laws and regulations to address new problems is why elected legislatures exist. Courts are for applying laws and regulations fairly and appropriately once they exist. While some bad things have certainly happened, proving direct liability under reckless endangerment in court, especially in an area so new, will be virtually impossible. Even willful negligence will be a stretch. This is neither the venue nor instrument of governance we as a society should be using to address these issues. And an attorney general should know that.
reactordev 4mo ago
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.
yieldcrv 4mo ago
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
rkochman 4mo ago
Ah, yes, from the state that brought us this official website: https://stopchemtrails.com/ https://stopchemtrails.com/
- good8675309 4mo ago
  Chemtrails aren't proven but weather engineering is: https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-weather-modification https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-weather-modification The chemtrails conspiracy is just used to dismiss valid concerns about weather modification
  - pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
    I don't really think this is true. You can say "chemtrails aren't real but weather engineering does concerns me". It's just that many (most?) of the people with the concerns are chemtrails people. It's not like non-chemtrails-believers have weaponized the chemtrails-as-a-belief to protect their precious weather engineering. Although that itself is quite a fun conspiracy :).
  - ransom1538 4mo ago
    Chemical weather creation, known scientifically as cloud seeding, uses substances like silver iodide ($AgI$), dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). This is the worst conspiracy there is a conspiracy ever. Just google it. Just ask people that dumped it from a plane. The people saying the gov. controls the weather were right, proved tons of times. Just toss up silver iodide, wtf is this hard to conceive? Florida doesn't lie? wtf?
    - nullbio 4mo ago
      The same chemical companies that produce pesticides and herbicides that have invested many millions of dollars into online propaganda, bots and social media departments to make people look crazy for questioning the safety of poisons that are literally designed to kill things are the same companies responsible for producing a lot of the substances that get sprayed from the sky. It's not a surprise that it's an effective campaign when they have so much reach. It's also not limited to weather modification - although that is the bulk of it. The other side is the agro industry and the push for GMO crop dominance.
Sol- 4mo ago
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.
dools 4mo ago
> 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!
bhewes 4mo ago
Classic oh we ran out of money lets sue to cover our issues, because its always the software's fault.
housesonhills 4mo ago
Open AI has a responsibility if they're aware of the lack of guardrails their product has, especially in the mental health market.
clear-octopus 4mo ago
[dead]
josh_p 4mo ago
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.
- nomel 4mo ago
  I think you're overestimated the baseline capabilities of an average person, but even more so with the average criminal that's dumb enough to use these tools to commit crime, who should benefit greatly from AI's help.
- luke727 4mo ago
  > Anyone in tech and tech-adjacent industries knows the difference and that we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI. Are we reading the same Hacker News comments sections?
  - josh_p 4mo ago
    y'know I did make an assumption there.. I want to believe my fellow HN readers know the difference.
stanleydupreez 4mo ago
[flagged]
ccimmergreen 4mo ago
Funny that they are not suing Google, xAI, Amazon or Anthropic? Seems to be politically driven given that Musk has a beef with Altman.
- preisschild 4mo ago
  Especially considering that Grok has a conspiracy mode that is easily prompted into advocating for another Holocaust
- bigfishrunning 4mo ago
  Is Musk associated with Florida? Not sure how Musk is relevant to this
  - danans 4mo ago
    Musk poured lots of money into FL governor Ron Desantis's 2024 presidential campaign.
nullbio 4mo ago
This is so dumb. Welcome to the age of zero accountability.
treebeard901 4mo ago
The powers that be are concerned about AI disrupting all the corruption.
ElenaDaibunny 4mo ago
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
everdrive 4mo ago
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.
sspoisk 4mo ago
[flagged]

268 points by cyunker 4mo ago

blitzar 4mo ago

Someone forgot to bribe someone.

newaccountman2 4mo ago

[flagged]

tim-tday 4mo ago

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

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

jqpabc123 4mo ago

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

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

bpodgursky 4mo ago

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).

spamizbad 4mo ago
Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals and Florida is a hub for non-college retirees
- mcmcmc 4mo ago
  > Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals Becoming? This has been true for decades in the urban areas
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals Source? It’s been an open secret in academia and medicine that professors [1] and doctors [2] are fleeing Texas’s political climate. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-university-political-climate-survey/ https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-univer... [2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gynecology-abortion-survey/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gyn...
  - nailer 4mo ago
    [1] is incredibly vague. Professors of what specifically? Computer science? Feminist theory? The second doesn't produce 'educated professionals'.
    - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > [1] is incrcredibly vague I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research aren’t exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy. Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
    - kxkdkeisuxbsn 4mo ago

kelseyfrog 4mo ago

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.

lazyasciiart 4mo ago
If you will never interact with or rely on people who are currently children, then that's plausible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to live that way, so your suggestion is not really under consideration.
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> or parents should parent their kids Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kids’ interest.
- kelseyfrog 4mo ago
  Parents should: Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1]. Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2]. Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3]. Not have had children in the first place[4]. Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5]. Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6]. Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7]. I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884 5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303 6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531 7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754

Legend2440 4mo ago

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.

nailer 4mo ago
> certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.
- Legend2440 4mo ago
  Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media. The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"
  - calmworm 4mo ago
    If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable. Edit: why vote this down? It’s part of a discussion. This isn’t Reddit.
    - ericfr11 4mo ago
      Not different than YouTube or Reddit
      - calmworm 4mo ago

lenerdenator 4mo ago

> 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.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

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.

mrandish 4mo ago
I suspect the plan here is to grandstand on this suit through the election cycle and then settle for a token $20M or $40M fine (payable to the state attorney general's office) and a jointly negotiated consent decree mandating vague rules which mirror the internal policies OAI has already adopted to shield themselves from liability. It's all politics, optics and 'governance theater'.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > suspect the plan here is to grandstand on this suit through the election cycle Why? There is no incentive to go easy on OpenAI. (Short of Altman stepping down, which he won't.) > It's all politics, optics This was my initial reaction. Some excerpts from the complaint [1]. The facts are pretty bad. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363561
  - mrandish 4mo ago
    > The facts are pretty bad. The facts alleged in initial complaints usually do look pretty bad. But the causes of action which are still standing after summary judgement and discovery tend to look a lot less bad. So I tend to heavily discount, if not outright dismiss, the facts alleged in initial complaints. But I'm jaded having seen too many damning alleged facts evaporate before trial. To be clear, I'm no fan of OAI or Altman. I think Altman, Brockman et al did pretty much subvert a non-profit. Unfortunately, I also think the OAI's board (past and recent) screwed up in a series of remarkably bone-headed ways which allowed Altman, Brockman, et al to get away with it. It's ironic that some of OAI's board members most aligned with the EA (Effective Altruism) movement ended up being so ineffective in fulfilling the governance duties of a non-profit board member. But the fact OAI is run by dudes who could have been sent by central casting for the role of "Smarmy Asshole Tech Bro #1 & #2" nor that ChatGPT said unimaginably horrific things to vulnerable people, fulfills ALL the prongs of each test required to get a conviction on these causes of action. Even if ChatGPT literally gave Hitler a detailed plan and an upbeat "Okay, let's do this!" to executing the actual Holocaust, that's still just the first prong. And hitting the first prong a million times harder doesn't move any of the other required prongs even a bit. Even in cases where the accused is obviously guilty, proving all the required prongs beyond a reasonable doubt can still be very hard. It's going to come down to a bunch of the details I mentioned in my other reply to you 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. In short, it's not enough that the 'product' actually caused horrific things. IANAL and I don't know Florida liability law but, in broad strokes, cases like this need to prove that an average reasonable person would clearly know these exact bad things were likely to happen based on what OAI knew at the time, and that OAI had an express duty to prevent those things, and was directly negligent in fulfilling those duties and knew they were negligent. Each of those involve nuanced situational judgements based on a lot of facts and timing not yet in evidence and if just one of them isn't quite provable beyond a reasonable doubt enough to convince 100% of a Florida jury, the whole case can fail. LLM chatbots being so new and unknown creates a lot of reasonable doubt for the prosecution to overcome. That's why I'm confident the prosecution has no desire to actually try this case.

delichon 4mo ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesn’t mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
- delichon 4mo ago
  Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already So has toothpaste. I’m really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.
238172 4mo ago

xp84 4mo ago

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 4mo ago
> 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 4mo ago
  > 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.

Crontab 4mo ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk Did you follow up on that by looking for any money links between Musk and this AG?

mrandish 4mo ago

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.

LastTrain 4mo ago
Agree, I would much rather see meaningful and powerful regulatory action instead of silly lawsuits.
- mrandish 4mo ago
  Indeed. Prosecution under consumer protection law in court is a poor substitute for well-considered legislation or regulation. Creating laws and regulations to address new problems is why elected legislatures exist. Courts are for applying laws and regulations fairly and appropriately once they exist. While some bad things have certainly happened, proving direct liability under reckless endangerment in court, especially in an area so new, will be virtually impossible. Even willful negligence will be a stretch. This is neither the venue nor instrument of governance we as a society should be using to address these issues. And an attorney general should know that.

reactordev 4mo ago

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.

yieldcrv 4mo ago

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

rkochman 4mo ago

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

good8675309 4mo ago
Chemtrails aren't proven but weather engineering is: https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-weather-modification https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-weather-modification The chemtrails conspiracy is just used to dismiss valid concerns about weather modification
- pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
  I don't really think this is true. You can say "chemtrails aren't real but weather engineering does concerns me". It's just that many (most?) of the people with the concerns are chemtrails people. It's not like non-chemtrails-believers have weaponized the chemtrails-as-a-belief to protect their precious weather engineering. Although that itself is quite a fun conspiracy :).
- ransom1538 4mo ago
  Chemical weather creation, known scientifically as cloud seeding, uses substances like silver iodide ($AgI$), dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). This is the worst conspiracy there is a conspiracy ever. Just google it. Just ask people that dumped it from a plane. The people saying the gov. controls the weather were right, proved tons of times. Just toss up silver iodide, wtf is this hard to conceive? Florida doesn't lie? wtf?
  - nullbio 4mo ago
    The same chemical companies that produce pesticides and herbicides that have invested many millions of dollars into online propaganda, bots and social media departments to make people look crazy for questioning the safety of poisons that are literally designed to kill things are the same companies responsible for producing a lot of the substances that get sprayed from the sky. It's not a surprise that it's an effective campaign when they have so much reach. It's also not limited to weather modification - although that is the bulk of it. The other side is the agro industry and the push for GMO crop dominance.

Sol- 4mo ago

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.

dools 4mo ago

> 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!

bhewes 4mo ago

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

housesonhills 4mo ago

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

clear-octopus 4mo ago

[dead]

josh_p 4mo ago

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.

nomel 4mo ago
I think you're overestimated the baseline capabilities of an average person, but even more so with the average criminal that's dumb enough to use these tools to commit crime, who should benefit greatly from AI's help.
luke727 4mo ago
> Anyone in tech and tech-adjacent industries knows the difference and that we shouldn't be calling LLMs AI. Are we reading the same Hacker News comments sections?
- josh_p 4mo ago
  y'know I did make an assumption there.. I want to believe my fellow HN readers know the difference.

stanleydupreez 4mo ago

[flagged]

ccimmergreen 4mo ago

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

preisschild 4mo ago
Especially considering that Grok has a conspiracy mode that is easily prompted into advocating for another Holocaust
bigfishrunning 4mo ago
Is Musk associated with Florida? Not sure how Musk is relevant to this
- danans 4mo ago
  Musk poured lots of money into FL governor Ron Desantis's 2024 presidential campaign.

nullbio 4mo ago

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

treebeard901 4mo ago

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

ElenaDaibunny 4mo ago

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

everdrive 4mo ago

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.

sspoisk 4mo ago

[flagged]