Comment by pton_xd
3 hours ago
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.
3 hours ago
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.
> 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.
> a chat bot
We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.
> 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.
1 reply →
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.
> A gun doesn't kill a person without being driven to action by a human.
See: p320 uncommanded discharge controversy.
Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.