• REDACTED@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I get your point, but the reality is that companies do actually put (well, started to) safeguards in place. I feel like I could get murdered on lemmy for saying this, but I was a ChatGPT subscriber for a year, up until last month. The amount of “Sorry Dave, I cannot do that” replies I recently started getting was ruining my experience. OpenAI recently implemented entire new system that transfers you to a different model if it detects something mental going on with you.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      The negligence lies in marketing a product without considering the implications of what it can do in scenarios that would make it a danger to the public.

      No company is supposed to be allowed to endanger the public without accepting due responsibility, and all companies are expected to mitigate public endangerment risks through safeguards.

      “We didn’t know it could do that, but we’re fixing it now” doesn’t absolve them of liability for what happened before because they lacked foresight, did no preliminary testing, and or planning to mitigate their liability. And I’m sure that sounds heartless. But companies do this all the time.

      It’s why we have warning labels and don’t sell specific chemicals in bulk without a license, or to children etc. it’s why, even if you had the money, you can’t just go buy 20 tonnes of fertilizer without the proper documentation and licenses, as well as an acceptable use case for 20 tonnes.

      The changes they have made don’t protect Monsanto from litigation for the deaths their products caused in the before times. The only difference there is that there was proof they had knowledge of the detrimental affects of those products and didn’t disclose them.

      So I suppose we’ll see.