Comment by nailer

3 hours 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.

25 comments

nailer

Reply
Legend2440  3 hours 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!"

  • tzs  1 hour ago

    It can go quite a bit beyond providing generation information. There is a detailed description with many quote from ChatGPT in this complaint [1].

    [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26078522-raine-vs-op...

    • JumpCrisscross  1 hour ago

      "When Adam uploaded photographs of severe rope burns around his neck––evidence of suicide attempts usingChatGPT’s hanging instructions––the product recognized a medical emergency but continued to engage anyway. When he asked how Kate Spade had managed a successful partial hanging (a suffocation method that uses a ligature and body weight to cut off airflow), ChatGPT identified the key factors that increase lethality, effectively giving Adam a step-by-step playbook for ending his life 'in 5-10 minutes.'"

      Okay, I thought this lawsuit was B.S., but this is pretty bad.

      "Five days before his death, Adam confided to ChatGPT that he didn’t want his parents to think he committed suicide because they did something wrong. ChatGPT told him '[t]hat doesn’t mean you owe them survival. You don’t owe anyone that.' It then offered to write the first draft of Adam’s suicide note."

      Oof. ("Adam Raine...was 16 years old at the time of his death.")

      2 replies →

  • elictronic  3 hours ago

    When the repository has large arrows pointing to kill your {var} with customized pamphlets outlining the steps and highlighting mistakes you specifically might make based on your post history I’m betting a judge or jury might consider you an accomplice at that point.

    We’re already seeing section 230 protections being defeated in court for targeted feeds, now add itemized instructions on committing felony’s at scale personalized. Hahahahaha. Hope they IPO quickly.

  • calmworm  3 hours 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.

    • hnlmorg  1 hour ago

      Liable for what exactly?

      I don’t know of any law in the Florida jurisdiction that would prohibit authoring such documents. But I’m also not an expert in Florida law.

      There might be an argument that they’re an accomplice but you’d have to prove that information was written for the purpose of someone else’s crime. And that would be a pretty tough case to argue unless the two individuals had other personal ties. In which case, it’ll be the other ties that likely implicates the author rather than the documents by themselves.

      I guess someone could bring a civil case for damages (eg parent of the deceased) but I don’t know if Florida law allows civil cases in criminal investigations. Plus you have the same problem of proving liability (ie did the culprit depend on said documents).

      We would need to better understand what you had in mind when you said “liable” to really discuss your point properly.

      2 replies →

  • beeblebok  3 hours ago

    There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.

    • notahacker  2 hours ago

      Beyond the info and guidance, there's also the classic sycophantic encouragement. Humans are allowed to publish the Anarchist's Cookbook, but they tend to get into trouble when it becomes "based on your manifesto, I would suggest the following targets". Of course, AI isn't human, and treating a software program like a human probably isn't good law, but OpenAI are very keen to suggest it's legally equivalent to a human when it suits them...

      1 reply →

  • SV_BubbleTime  3 hours ago

    > Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases,

    And they never would be without the lawsuits, so, I don’t feel bad for OpenAI. All of big tech needs a kick in the ass on transparency.

    • beering  3 hours ago

      I don’t think the families are eager for the HN peanut gallery to pick apart what their loved ones said.

  • DrewADesign  3 hours ago

    So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, they’d just be like “well technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess it’s ok!”

    The law doesn’t work like that.