Comment by qarl

5 hours ago

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

> I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?

  • Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability.

    It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."

    • If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.

      1 reply →

  • The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".

One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility/culpability for (possibly nefarious) actions in the eyes of the public. The average person has no idea how LLMs actually work and think it’s plausible that an “agent” could go rogue without any human instruction. Terms like agent, thinking, reasoning, etc reinforce the misconception that the LLM has a mind of its own.

  • > One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility

    No it isn't.

    • Yes, it is, for the reasons I stated in my comment, and you only need look at any OAI/Anthropic press release to see evidence of this in the language they use.

      The LLM now reasons better! Set the thinking level! It learns!

      All of these phrases are designed to give the impression that the LLM is an autonomous entity, when it is no such thing.

      1 reply →