Comment by saintfire
6 days ago
People championing the absolution of billionaires who create a chatbot that can't spell strawberry who then say it should be allowed to choose who lives and dies wasn't what I expected at the turn of the decade.
Beautiful.
This can only be an intentional misreading the bill, or you haven't read the underlying bill at all. Because the headline is patently false. It indemnifies them ONLY if they unknowingly assist in mass murder.
If someone asks ChatGPT "hey chatgpt, where are spots in my city where a lot of people hang out on the street", then uses his car to mass murder 18 people, you want OpenAI to be on the stand? Sounds like an objectively insane position.
In a world with broad liability as you desire, the person who rented a hostel room to Luigi Mangione while he plotted murder should be held liable for aiding him, despite knowing nothing of his intentions.
Half of these people have financial interests in the companies in question either directly working for them or indirectly, or are already part of that class. Realize they're behind the keyboard, and there's nothing surprising about it.