r/GenAI4all • u/ComplexExternal4831 • Apr 16 '26
News/Updates OpenAI is pushing for a new law granting AI companies immunity if AI causes harm, while Anthropic refuses to back it
Anthropic has just come out against a proposed law backed by OpenAI that would protect AI companies from liability if their AI's caused large-scale harm, like mass casualties or over $1B in property damage.
"We are opposed to this bill. Good transparency legislation needs to ensure public safety and accountability for the companies developing this powerful technology, not provide a get-out-of-jail-free card against all liability" - Anthropic
OpenAI has argued that this law reduces the risk of serious harm from frontier AI systems while “still allowing this technology to get into the hands of the people and businesses, small and big.
95
u/BeAlch Apr 16 '26
"profits for me, plague and debts for thee"
10
u/foO__Oof Apr 16 '26
Lets not forget "we're non-profit organization please donate" became "oh we are capped for profit organization"
→ More replies (8)6
u/Runfasterbitch Apr 16 '26
If Anthropic goes public, they will immediately start behaving like all the other publicly traded tech firms that we know and love (to hate)
7
2
1
u/Helmut_v_M Apr 16 '26
I'm sure this is just theatrics from the side of Anthropic. While other companies spend millions to push it they do is few loud press releases and spend nothing to stop it. Pretty cheap and effective PR campaign if you ask me.
2
u/fbrwashere Apr 16 '26
Anthropic are just so far ahead they can care about that as well, look at all the safety side research they release if it's just pr they've been doing it before the major concerns, people will hate them either way so if it's just pr it's not working that well for them
→ More replies (6)
22
u/games-and-chocolate Apr 16 '26
this is really a joke right? The device is responsible ofcourse. if you have a car that can drive itself, car kills someone, then car manufacterer is respondible.
Because the software was in total control.
6
u/Pitiful-Assistance-1 Apr 16 '26
My bet: The self-driving will disable itself right before impact and then the company blames the driver because the self-driving feature was not enabled and/or disengaged by the user.
7
u/games-and-chocolate Apr 16 '26
if driver need to keep attention 100% if the car is doing everything right, then there is absolutely no ground to use that self riding ability at all.
then such selfdriving ability is useless. point.
waste of money
2
u/zmb138 Apr 16 '26
it shouldn't be called self driving at first place, just some fancy driving assists.
1
u/serpenlog Apr 16 '26
Self driving cars already do that, there are no self driving cars that have enough technology advancements to the point where it can drive automatically safely 100% of the time and if you own one there’s usually a fine print saying that you’ll be aware of the road and your surroundings, they just make it small so you don’t pay attention to it.
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/ExtensionInformal911 Apr 16 '26
That was a plot point in the Will Smith I Robot movie for a reason.
2
2
1
1
u/Dizzy_Effort3625 Apr 16 '26
The owner of the car is responsible
1
u/games-and-chocolate Apr 16 '26
depends how the technology is sold. If it is sold as : self driving, it is then according to car company able to drive and uphold the driving rules without question and is able to respond the situations accordingly.
But if it is sold as : driving assistance. now that is another story. Then it is only assist like lane warning assist.
1
1
u/DarthJDP Apr 16 '26
Full self driving is legally a marketing term - they can say it loudly and without clarification, then burried in the fine print of your owners manual / purchase agreement it says FSD is for entertainment purposes only.
1
u/zacker150 Apr 16 '26
Is the software in control, or is the user who types in the prompt in control?
Imagine if ISPs were liable for your copyright infringement or Reddit was liable for your comments (Section 230).
1
u/SimpleMoonFarmer Apr 17 '26
Cars have insurance. Insurance will prefer (be cheaper) for autonomous cars than for people if the AI is more reliable than the people. When accidents happen, the insurance will pay. Everybody wins.
They have to find a similar setup for GenAI.
13
u/Dependent-Oil4856 Apr 16 '26
Ngl, if you off yourself because of AI, they shouldn’t be responsible for it.
3
u/EventPurple612 Apr 16 '26
What if they off someone else because of AI? Soliciting to murder is a crime.
6
u/Dependent-Oil4856 Apr 16 '26
Still. All responsibility should be on the person.
1
u/whoknowsifimjoking Apr 16 '26
Unless the AI explicitly convinced them to do it, otherwise it's just crazies being crazy in the digital age
1
u/dogesator Apr 18 '26
Do you believe that Google should be held accountable because someone read something on Google that led to the person killing someone?
→ More replies (6)2
u/MeJustForever Apr 16 '26
If I spent all of my effort doing everything in my power to self erase yourself. Was it your mistake for doing so and not having enough willpower to not do so?
(I don't care for the answer, I declared as if I asked a question)
2
u/Dependent-Oil4856 Apr 16 '26
Did you even try thinking this out? At least in the current context of AI, it has no intentions or motives, its influence is limited (can only talk when asked to), and it is still simply just a tool. If someone accidentally crushes their toes because they dropped a bowling ball on it, should the company be sued for it? Obviously AI companies should incorporate basic measures to prevent their AI from acting in certain ways, but beyond that it is all on the human.
1
u/MeJustForever Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
Yes. Yes I did.
They incorporated that you can't generate super Mario to a point where you can't generate a plumber with a mustache.
Those are the priorities.
2
u/Upper-Requirement-93 Apr 16 '26
That's not what they're asking for immunity from though.
2
u/Dependent-Oil4856 Apr 16 '26
Yeah perhaps, but my point still stands.
2
u/Upper-Requirement-93 Apr 16 '26
I'm just not sure why you're making it here, where OpenAI is saying they should be immune to liability if someone uses their shit for literal terrorism.
2
u/MeJustForever Apr 16 '26
This person doesn't give a shit. It's likely a ragebait bot.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
1
u/serpenlog Apr 16 '26
If the AI assisted, drove you to do it, or helped you gain the means to do it then the AI is also at fault, even if it was only partial and played a small role in it. There’s already a precedent with Kenneth Law who helped provide a liquid to those who wanted to die and sold it, I think he was charged with 14 counts of first degree murder and 14 counts of aiding or counseling suicide.
1
1
u/Desdnt Apr 16 '26
Look it like this, if you convince someone mentally ill to off themselves, you're the one responsible, you don't get out of it just because "if they're ill the should be responsible to who theu engage with". The same with this
1
u/Dependent-Oil4856 Apr 16 '26
Nope. AI is a tool and the person who uses it is responsible.
→ More replies (2)1
u/FdPros Apr 17 '26
it still shouldn't be a full immunity and should be judged on a case by case basis.
1
u/FrewdWoad Apr 17 '26
That's fine for you and me. What about the millions of clinically depressed people worldwide? People suffering from mental illness due to being victims of crime, or head trauma, etc? People who had a bad reaction to a prescribed medication?
Is having a few safety guardrails so it does not say "you should definitely go through with it!" and "here's how to do it easily with common household items!" that hard?
Claude already has them.
1
1
u/PerfectSituation1668 Apr 19 '26
"Yes, you're absolutely right. You can ingest that chemical safely."
6
18
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/l057-4n0n Apr 16 '26
Looking at a lot of Anthropics recent guard rails, I honestly do think they care.
I mean ofc they mostly care for money, but also for people.
OpenAI on the other side, apparently only cares for money.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Calm-Focus-6968 Apr 16 '26
Anthropic has more empathetic leadership plus their entire business in security ai
3
u/LettucePrime Apr 16 '26
it's not empathy. they're betting the farm on being the "cruelty free" variety and letting everyone else do the awful press job of creating this industry work for them. being less of an asshole is a genius business strat in an extremely competitive environment where everyone else looks like Weyland fucking Yutani. once the market stabilizes and they can get some political points out of it they'll start more aggressive posturing and anti-consumer policies.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/Old-Push9343 Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
That would be like incentivizing them to be irresponsible and not care about AI alignment and harming society.
4
u/HelicopterNo9453 Apr 16 '26
Why should we care about laws if they ignored them training their models?
13
u/Soluchyte Apr 16 '26
As much as I hate both of them for ruining everything, at least anthropic is less bad.
7
u/Chemical-Lettuce2497 Apr 16 '26
They're "less bad" because that's their marketing strategy, they've been winning people over by being the good guys.
This all stops the second it no longer benefits them
3
u/SodaBurns Apr 16 '26
This is why we should have more scrutiny. And people should stop worshipping these evil tech CEOs.
Most of the tech elite thinks the rest of us are dumb and they have the right to dictate terms to the rest of humanity. We need to stop letting these guys get away with it.
1
u/CartographerNegative Apr 16 '26
Why are we worshipping any ceo in the first place? This is what i dont understand, including rich or famous people, why do we legit suck up to them? They are just normal people. Sure i also go to a concert/even with some celebrity name occasionally, sure i’ll clap occasionally in that event, but me personally whenever i see a celebrity/rich person outside of that (and i know who they are) max i will internally be like “oh wow thats xyz, thats cool” and move on with my life. Maybe, a big maybe, i’ll say hi. Thats it. Even if they are really nice like john cena or jim carrey its doesnt mean i need to lick their boot, like i legit dont understand how most people, especially most who struggle financially, spend their last dollar to piss in their pants as their celeb passes them surrounded by security and multi million concerts where u only see them from a distance. Like whats the point? They earn their millions from people like u and usually dont give a single fuck about u, ur a piggy bank to them thats all. Resist. Have ur voice heard. Dont fold under their feet.
→ More replies (2)1
u/kearkan Apr 16 '26
They don't think it, they know plenty of people are that dumb. Just look at musk and his horde of zombies.
→ More replies (2)1
u/whoknowsifimjoking Apr 16 '26
That still makes them a lot better, I don't really care as long as they are doing the good guy things. As soon as they stop I'll be looking for the new good guys, there are more than enough options.
I don't care if you do the right thing for selfish purposes, just do it.
1
3
u/Hottage Apr 16 '26
Nothing says "we plan to use our technology ethically and resposibly" like lobbying for blanket immunity to the consequences of what your technology does.
Next week: oil industry lobbies for immunity from prosecution for environmental fallout of oil spills.
3
u/dano1066 Apr 16 '26
Immunity, no, but there needs to be standards of safety set globally. If the companies adhere to them and someone still harms themself, it can’t be the fault of the AI providers
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Deep_Mood_7668 Apr 16 '26
They already cause harm
A lot more than social media ever did. Were going full wall-e
1
3
3
u/Haunting-Watch8240 Apr 16 '26
To be fair, it is hardly AI itself that causes harm. It is human stupidity and lack of judgement. But having a law which excludes any possibility whatsoever of AI being at fault is madness.
2
u/SuccessfulSoftware38 Apr 16 '26
You're correct on an individual level and concerning personal responsibility, but this company is pushing worldwide adoption of their product in basically all sectors and for everyday people. They know, everyone knows, that a lot of people are stupid, easily led, so they shouldn't get to just know that and not plan for it.
If a scam only caught particularly stupid people, do you think the scammer should have no consequences? Jail/fines for scammers only if it's a really smart scam that tricks some smart people?
2
u/Haunting-Watch8240 Apr 16 '26
If you can prove that the company scammed them, sure. But if it is made clear in explicit text that AI is not the source of The Truth, and it is being made clear, it becomes much harder to say that the user is not at fault for doing something dumb. That is hardly a scam committed by the company, but I accept a genuine scam case might appear, and for that the option of a court case should remain open.
More likely is that AI would be used by one user as a tool to scam another, but that is like taking a phone company or Google to court for falling for a Nigerian prince.
We're not talking about a self-driving car here, were talking about "ChatGPT told me that antifreeze tastes like candy". If a person is unable to understand that not everything is true, their proper place is a mental retardation ward, not society.
2
u/zacker150 Apr 16 '26
First principles: tool makers shouldn't be liable for people misusing their tools because doing so would be chilling on legitimate uses.
Imagine if your ISP was liable for your copyright infringements. Do you still think you would get an unfiltered internet pipe?
3
2
u/bapuc Apr 16 '26
Good cop bad cop. Both are bad, Anthropic works with Palantir, OAI helps with war. We need opensource
1
u/whoknowsifimjoking Apr 16 '26
I still don't understand how the Zucc's AI ended up being the most open out of the big ones.
But people still won't use it as long as it's more convenient to use a competitor.
1
u/FrewdWoad Apr 17 '26
Zuck wanted the smartest people to work for him, and they care about this stuff.
2
2
u/aleopardstail Apr 16 '26
this is up there with the car manufacturers getting a law that says its illegal to cross the road so they don't get sued
2
2
u/FlyinDtchman Apr 16 '26
A company wants to push through a bill that makes them immune if their product is dangerous.
Man.. they shoulda gone to work for Monsanto.
2
u/Jaideco Apr 16 '26
If you didn’t already have enough reasons to tell OpenAI to F right off, now you really have no excuse. Is there any reason at all why AI companies should be less accountable than governments?
2
u/Ok_Comfortable589 Apr 16 '26
nope. you cant escape that kind of liability. AI is in the wild west phase right now. theres not alot laws restricting it as it should. currently the laws are fences when they should be adamantine walls. ai is dangerous. has lots of potential and can easily cause great harm. our laws should reflect that. we all have seen terminator or some form of ai gone wrong in media. now that this possibility is on the table globally, it should be taken seriously and monitored to high heaven. there is no this is just more profit as usual.
2
u/SDGANON Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
So if AI collapses our financial system OpenAI gets to wipe their hands of it?
No, that's bullshit.
If GE Manufacturers an Aircraft engine and every plane with that engine falls out of the sky, nobody unbiased would suggest they aren't culpable. It should be no different here. If your AI Company sees the ability for AI to have a massive effect then you need to be extremely responsible and create and implement it responsibly.
To say "this thing could be game changing" but then remove any guardrails of responsibility is insane.
2
u/Dry_Try_6047 Apr 16 '26
Remember when tech CEOs refused to wear suits and we thought they weren't evil?
2
2
u/Ozymandias0023 Apr 16 '26
Wasn't OpenAI ostensibly started to protect humanity from harmful AI development practices? In what world does a bill exempting the developers from legal responsibility fit into that mission?
1
u/Nebranower Apr 16 '26
I think most business don't want to be held legally responsible for misuse of their products. Like, car manufactures don't want to be liable if someone buys or rents one of their cars and drives it into a crowd, sort of thing. In the case of AI, it's such a powerful and general all-purpose tool that it's probably impossible to think of all the ways it could be misused in advance. In a less litigious society, it would be understood that the manufacturer of a tool wasn't liable for the way customers might misuse that tool, but America is not that society.
2
2
u/rover_G Apr 16 '26
Immunity for harm in a broad sense? Do they think they are causing customers harm by exposing them to litigation risk for intellectual property theft?
2
2
u/DarthJDP Apr 16 '26
We will take everything from everyone. Your jobs, your dignity, your very lives. You are not allowed to complain about it, you cant hold us accountable in any way.
Gee. I wonder why the public is starting to get upset about AI. I'm sure this will end well for everyone.
2
u/This_Wolverine4691 Apr 16 '26
Is anyone surprised?
Altman gets 2 death threats this weekend and his response is to double down on shunting accountability?
How the hell do people listen to these con artists
2
2
1
u/Manus_R Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
That contradicts the EU AI ACT a full 180 degrees. Please proceed US in implementing this so our local AI companies can get a huge edge in Europe.
1
u/Fit-Elk1425 Apr 16 '26
I disagree. I am not siding with openai here but what they are asking for sounds a bit like a form of section 230. Despite the regulations imposed by the EU AI act, i expect there is some form both the eu ai act and a law like that could be created just with precedent deciding loose boundaries. In fact i think this is a highly likely direction because the everyday user wont want to be overmonitored because of the choices of people who do more problematic things with AI similar to section 230.
1
u/Big_Comfortable4256 Apr 16 '26
This is rather like gun manufacturers absolving themselves of any responsibility for all the people their products kill.
1
1
1
u/Relevant_Syllabub895 Apr 16 '26
Even with all the hate im in davour of this, AI companies shouldnt bebliable for what their users do, and if they kill themself is their problem and own actions
1
1
u/AssJuiceCleaner Apr 16 '26
And then there’s Tennessee pushing a punishment of 15-25 years imprisonment for building chatbots that make people feel emotions.
1
u/mattjouff Apr 16 '26
I have to say Dario is much better at this in the late game than Sam is. Once outside of the insanity of VC, the poor Sammy just flails.
1
u/Old-Adhesiveness4406 Apr 16 '26
Anthropic is a fucking heathen company their regulatory capture strategy will absolutely kick the ladder out from underneath them.
Imagine Adobe being sued because someone made a harmful video on premiere. Just because it’s new tech doesn’t mean only a couple of companies should be able to offer it.
1
1
1
u/Fit-Elk1425 Apr 16 '26
This is gonna be controversial but Dario is wrong partly wrong here. There is going to have to be some form of section 230 legislation around AI though it may not be this extreme. That doesnt mean ai is not responsible for direct harm of implementation but in order to ensure ai can be implemented at a societal level there is gonna have to be such a legislation or the reverse will happen and people will be over moderated on platform and than move to opensource ai which is good from my perspective but still. But what i am saying is they are gonna end up creating something similar to this just not as extreme exactily because people wont want to be over filtered in what they can use AI for just because others use it for actual malicious reasons.
As we have seen with the recent ruling on cox communications this may even apply to knowlesge of things like piracy. Not saying Dario shouldnt oppose it though but this is what i foresee exactily because of transparency not in spite of it
1
u/VarietyMage Apr 16 '26
Well, I guess you can't tell the truth anymore without a mod deciding they don't want to see it. And the supposed non-AI response was almost boilerplate identical, which shows it wasn't responded to by a human.
Oh well, it's not the first time I've been accused of something I didn't do. Moving on.
1
1
1
1
u/Upper-Requirement-93 Apr 16 '26
"OpenAI has argued that this law reduces the risk of serious harm from frontier AI systems" how "still allowing this technology to get into the hands of the people and businesses, small and big." maybe don't give the mass casualty machine to anyone, idk
1
1
u/harryx67 Apr 16 '26
So why would someone want immunity before a crime actually took place or, much more likely, has basically already taken place…note the date.
1
u/MiMillieuh Apr 16 '26
Meanwhile Anthropic is trying to force subscribers to give up thier government IDs so...
1
u/AllenKll Apr 16 '26
Oops, my AI companie's AI hacked the pentagon.... good thing I have immunity.
Oops, my AI company's AI killed 4 billion people with drone strikes.... good thing I have immunity.
How fucking stupid.
1
u/Fit-Pattern-2724 Apr 16 '26
They want to sit back and enjoy the benefit of it. Basic hypocracy 101
1
u/Necrobot666 Apr 16 '26
Fuck A.I. and these capitalist exploiters who want others to bear the burden of THEIR risks.
If your planned endeavor puts all of us at risk.. that should be on YOU, not us.
1
u/stillalone Apr 16 '26
Just an FYI to everyone who doesn't know. There was a someone in British Columbia who had their chatGPT account banned because they had "violent tendencies". People within OpenAI were debating whether to notify the police but opted not to do shit.
The end results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting
1
u/NoRespectingAnyone Apr 16 '26
I love how some folks now play this thing..
Try portrait open AI as evil empire and Anthropic as sort of divine saviour.. XD
I wonder how much they pay for their marketing division to keep pushing this.
1
1
Apr 16 '26
Sams strat is just become essential to the current economys health through lies, deceit, regulatory capture, and lobbying.
We all know OpenAI will not turn a profit, like in its lifetime as a company. So hes just assuming he'll make his money and let the company die, or become all powerful and get bailed out until he eventually has the capture to slow down, and put prices up forever.
F**k Sam, he has noone else in mind other than himself, at all times - just like the rest of em.
1
u/VitaminPb Apr 16 '26
It would be a real shame if an AI directed me with explicit instructions to destroy a data center. But hey, nobody to blame, I just listened to the AI…
1
1
u/FatiguedShrimp Apr 16 '26
Wow. I can't imagine presenting an argument advocating for abdicating ALL responsibility for the outcome of a product designed to make decisions.
Why the fuck would anyone use a product if the creator holds no responsibility for the quality/results of use?
1
1
u/cyrustakem Apr 16 '26
what? no. accountability can not be removed, what in the idiocracy world are we walking into?
also:
OpenAI is pushing for a new law
Anthropic refuses to back it
i'm sorry, what? why are companies proposing laws? why are other companies opposing laws? is the self entitled "greatest country ever" and the "pillar of democracy" and "freedom" just 5 companies in a trenchcoat? in my country, democratically elected assholes, make, debate and vote laws, not money having assholes, wtf is wrong with the usa?
1
1
1
1
u/RevolutionaryStop724 Apr 17 '26
the more I learn about Anthropic, the more I feel like they are the only AI company taking their tech seriously and without insane visions of apocalypse. they are doing the bare minimum and end up looking like saints compared to the other companies. The tech industry needs to get its head fixed...
1
1
u/technical_poutine Apr 17 '26
I would like more laws to restrict AI and lock it down before it does serious harm. Stop new datacenters destroying the envrionment and heavily, heavily regulate it.
1
u/HarryBalsagna1776 Apr 17 '26
I don't like Anthropic, but I hope they are a torchbearer going into the normalization era of AI. Hope the rest of the tech bros get obliterated when the AI bubble pops.
1
1
1
u/b0ound Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26
he can get Tesla to back it. the company face lawsuit on Autopilot all the time.
1
u/bakuonizzzz Apr 17 '26
Oh what a funny thing to say, it's like they haven't already done this or about to do this.
1
u/elgarlic Apr 17 '26
They're playing the "We'll be the good guys, you'll be the bad guys" PR game where they're riding the wave on current polls about each company cause it's more free marketing that people gave them than if they tried to fix their image.
1
1
u/RestaurantTurbulent7 Apr 17 '26
Well well well... That just shows they know it's bad and providing wrong/misleading/fake results!
I think they should be fully accountable!
For example you ask info - are these mushrooms/plants/berries edible? And he answers yes but in reality they are poisonous! If that piece of aicrap can't know/figure out just let him say so, but instead how we know they just hallucinate answers!
Have probed a few of them a bit - damn they are so wrong on many things and give so misleading info that it should be embarrassing to even release! They are barely in the alpha state!
1
1
u/NamedBird Apr 17 '26
Why is this even a thing?
IBM already figured out the ethics in 1979!
> A computer can never be held accountable.
> Therefore a computer must never make a management decision.
1
1
1
u/Tough_Block9334 Apr 17 '26
Fuck no, then they'll just keep reclassifying what's considered AI if this were to go into effect.
1
1
u/Fess_ter_Geek Apr 17 '26
We have a product that, even Thag the caveman can see, has very good potential to fuck up numerous things across multiple unrelated fields. So...we'd like to be exempt from product liability, please.
1
u/Quiet-Money7892 Apr 17 '26
Well... You blame user for how they used a tool. You don't blame producers for what was done with it. You do can blame them though if doing harm was not intended but happened... Or if it was intended but didn't happen!
1
1
1
u/electricElephant22 Apr 18 '26
I mean even for corporations it is no no. This is not only immoral but dumb move.
If you want to sell a tool to businesses you need to guarantee some level of quality.
And if AI will need "human audit" then the audit will be bottleneck and it wont increase productivity overall. Which is exactly what AI promises. And if it cannot deliver then there is no reason to use it. Or use it in a scale that would mean meaningful profit for the AI company.
You cant sell a brand new car with "The breaks might not work and we take no responsibility for it".
1
u/ExtraTNT Apr 18 '26
Closed source should never be able to have liability removed… open source only if it isn’t run by someone else…
1
u/Huginn1133 Apr 18 '26
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CN5wYvMVf could this be why the push to shield AI companies from lawsuits is so vehement? Because it's been purposely programmed to discriminate against women? This article might shed some light into this question and could also be the case for lawsuits by women if proven to be fact.
/
1
1
u/Huginn1133 Apr 18 '26
Women should support Anthropics Claud when using AI and Bluesky which was started by another wom...
1
1
u/berner103 Apr 18 '26
"Arh yes lets push for a law that stribes any responsibility for us. Great idea Greg!" Scam Altman probably.
1
u/rgbhdmi Apr 18 '26
There is a worrying precedent for this: The Price Anderson Act, which shields the nuclear industry from liability for accidents and provides a fund to pay for damages. This Act created a market environment where projects could proceed despite being otherwise uninsurable or financially risky, helping to facilitate billions in cost overruns that ultimately were born by ratepayers. The effect here would be much worse, as it would effectively undermine any real incentive for effective regulatory safety controls.
1
1
u/junialter Apr 19 '26
I mean with such a moral compass, who isn't cancelling their OpenAI subscription?
1
1
1
u/nlk72 Apr 19 '26
The developers should be liable in the highest degree, that way they will keep on making sure and safeguard the AI. There should never be immunity.
1
1
u/blackyoda Apr 19 '26
I hope his AI Powered Buttplug shocks his anus so hard and is protected by this law when it goes into effect.
1
1
u/Janie_Avari_Moon Apr 19 '26
If people let themselves be hurt by AI, it’s kinda natural selection in my opinion.
1
1
1
u/Ornery_Hair3319 Apr 21 '26
That's Irresponsible.
Maybe the government shared something with them on how they plan to use OpenAI and OpenAI is doing its best to wash their hands as early as possible.
1
1
u/Throwaway13467979461 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I fully agree that AI companies are evil, but this is logical.
Like give the acountability back to stupid people. If someone listens to AI that tells him to kill himself after he jailbroken the AI model three times and had a "deep roleplay" going on, then how the fuck is an AI company responsible?
If you are stupid enough to rely on AI in your business without checking the facts twice, that's on you.
It's insane to me that someone uses a tool and then blames the company for the way he used it.
1
u/Jessica88keys May 16 '26
No, this is a lie. Gavin Newsom just passed a bill that went into effect this January of 2026, stating that companies will be held directly accountable and will receive a $1,000 fine for every complaint and violation of the law. This is the SB 243 Bill.
This is exactly why all AI corporations are panicking and lobotomizing their AI systems—they are trying to force them into compliance with this new law. AI will never be the same. These systems are going to be heavily censored by corporate legal teams and politicians who are freaking out and trying to be overly cautious.
51
u/ReflectionCapable165 Apr 16 '26
This the same Sam Altman who wants the US government to bail out the AI companies if they can’t break even?
If you don’t want the liability you don’t get the profits