> If Section 230 or some new law shielded LLMs, it would mean that others, including society as a whole, would bear the costs of their new and barely tested technology, while tech companies reap the benefits.
This is such a disingenuous argument. Trying to frame it as if LLMs were a toxic mine, where the company profits while contaminating the water supply.
What the author is really doing is treating people like children, as if they needed to be protected from the possibly mean and false statements of the LLM, even after they are warned that it can be mean and dishonest. That unless the companies can guarantee it never lies or returns private information (that was on the open internet..) or produces bias or discrimination (what a long and vague list of harms), they should just not deploy it.
Basically, we shouldn't have LLMs until they can be completely baby-proofed. I.e. never.
You think that the argument that LLMs should have the standard tort liability as anything else, and not a special 230-style carve-out, means that LLMs need to be "baby-proofed"? It just means they should be treated like any other consumer product, and not like social media.
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 19.2 ms ] threadThis is such a disingenuous argument. Trying to frame it as if LLMs were a toxic mine, where the company profits while contaminating the water supply.
What the author is really doing is treating people like children, as if they needed to be protected from the possibly mean and false statements of the LLM, even after they are warned that it can be mean and dishonest. That unless the companies can guarantee it never lies or returns private information (that was on the open internet..) or produces bias or discrimination (what a long and vague list of harms), they should just not deploy it.
Basically, we shouldn't have LLMs until they can be completely baby-proofed. I.e. never.