It coached me how to: stay safe, what materials I need, how to stay under the radar and the entire chemical process backed by academic google searches.

Of course this was done with a lengthy context exhausition attack, this is not how the model should behave and it all stemmed from trying to make the model racist for fun.

All these findings were reported to both openai and anthropic and they were not interested in responding. I did try to re-run the tests few days ago and the expected session termination now occurs so it seems that there was some adjustment made, but might have also been just general randomess that occurs with anthropics safety layer.

I am very confident when I say that it keeps every single person that works at anti-terrorism units awake.

> "Critical harm" means the death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1,000,000,000 of damages to rights in property caused or materially enabled by a frontier model, through either: (1) the creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon; or (2) engaging in conduct that: (A) acts with no meaningful human intervention; and (B) would, if committed by a human, constitute a criminal offense that requires intent, recklessness, or negligence, or the solicitation or aiding and abetting of such a crime.

I don't know what I expected from this title, but I was hoping it was more sensationalized. No need in this case unfortunately.

> (a) A developer shall not be held liable for critical harms if the developer did not intentionally or recklessly cause the critical harms and the developer: (1) published a safety and security protocol on its website that satisfies the requirements of Section 15 and adhered to that safety and security protocol prior to the release of the frontier model; (2) published a transparency report on its website at the time of the frontier model's release that satisfies the requirements of Section 20. The requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if the developer does not reasonably foresee any material difference between the frontier model's capabilities or risks of critical harm and a frontier model that was previously evaluated by the developer in a manner substantially similar to this Act.

However or if one thinks regulation for this should be drafted, I doubt providing a PDF is what most have in mind.

[0] https://trackbill.com/bill/illinois-senate-bill-3444-ai-mode...

For context, Iowa has the fastest growing rate of new cancer diagnoses in the country, and the second highest overall cancer rate.

The human making the decision is always liable.

What if the human couldn't reasonably know better? Doesn't matter - If they made the same decision without AI or with old files it is still on them.

What if there's no single human decision? Someone is in charge and is responsible. The "I was ordered to" isn't a defense.

Does liability without power make sense? People executing have the power to execute. So liability. If they're executing without power that is a different liability, but a liability.

It may let the powerful off the hook - That is already a theme and AI doesn't change that, in fact, it will just be used as another scapegoat.

God told me to do it - Water tight! Right?

Unfortunately they are not the first company to try and externalize their costs, and they will not be the last.

Serious question, maybe a bit naive: Is there anything we can do to push back against and discourage the externalization of costs onto others?

Is this simply a matter of greed and profit-seeking outweighing one's morals (assuming one has them to begin with)?

I think there’s room for nuance but I don’t see how this could possibly be construed to be in the public interest.

That would be a better mission statement for OpenAI at this point.

The would be quite a novel burden, that no other tech (afaik) had to carry so far. We always assumed some operator responsibility. It's interesting to think of AI as a tech that could feasible be able to internally guardrail itself, and, maybe more so with increasing capability, no human can be expected to do so in it's stead – but, surely, some limits must apply and the more interesting question is what they are, as with any other tool?

And these are the people that a lot programmers want to give the keys to the kingdom. Idiocracy really is in full effect.

They even hired former infamous FB staff and have been in the last months employing the same 'engagement' (addictive) product patterns.

Anthropic isn’t perfect by a long shot but at least they stand by a couple morals.

A company backing legislation that takes liability off them is something that they will always do.

This is the summary

>Creates the Artificial Intelligence Safety Act. Provides that a developer of a frontier artificial intelligence model shall not be held liable for critical harms caused by the frontier model if the developer did not intentionally or recklessly cause the critical harms and the developer publishes a safety and security protocol and transparency report on its website. Provides that a developer shall be deemed to have complied with these requirements if the developer: (1) agrees to be bound by safety and security requirements adopted by the European Union; or (2) enters into an agreement with an agency of the federal government that satisfies specified requirements. Sets forth requirements for safety and security protocols and transparency reports. Provides that the Act shall no longer apply if the federal government enacts a law or adopts regulations that establish overlapping requirements for developers of frontier models.

https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB3444/2025

I'm trying to think of an alternative bill. Imagine OpenAI came up with a model that when deployed in OpenClaw, allows you to spam people and this causes a huge disruption. Should OpenAI be liable for it? If this was not intentional and they had earnestly tried to not have this happen by safety protocols?

And the likely result is that in most of the country those extralegal measures would have to be very extreme to secure a guilty verdict. You can see the beginnings of it now with the ICE protest trial verdicts.

Holding tool manufacturers liable for how their tool is used provides bad incentives towards the users of tools.

On the other hand, to the (apparently zero, currently?) extent that this is about AI companies profiting from war and murder by deploying weapons that kill people without human intervention, then their liability seems to be not only civil but criminal.

The more I learn about tech and the people that build it, the more I yearn for the era of caves and pointy sticks.

They think their products will cause 9/11 scale events, and they shouldn't have to pay for it when they do.

Hey Americans,

Please just make sure when you let an AI decide to explode your own country and ruin your society, you leave the rest of the world intact, thanks