I brought up a separate situation with ChatGPT and was told their strategy is to deflect the conversation into a direction that would not lead to harm. It might seem easy to call 9-1-1 if it appeared someone was about to harm someone but the chatbot has no idea if this is a prank or if it is an elaboration of something that has already happened. The bot needs another element to differentiate truth from fiction.
For now, all it can do is take hypotheticals and describe what a person might do. It can't decide what is a true event or what is not or whether an alternate point of view might exist.
All ChatGPT does is do a web search and summarizes the information.
A Google Search would do the same.
will fail, that would be like suing an encyclopedia company because someone used it to create a weapon or a poison.
“ChatGPT allegedly explained how to use the guns Ikner obtained, including how to load and operate them and that one weapon had no safety, meaning it could be fired quickly under stress.” Don’t try to fire that one when you’re drunk.
No different then suing Glock because of the glock switches were installed and used in crimes.
How about suing the dems and lame stream media for normalizing violent acts while they’re suing?
Why not sue the parents, from whom the killer learned English, without which he would not have understood what AI told him.
Connect the dots, my ass.
Apparently, it provided some publicly available information.
These people would get the vapors if they saw what the dark web can show someone what and how to do it.
Guns are the least of their worries. Anyone with a basic understanding of college level chemistry is a much larger danger than some mouth breather with a Glock. If they can pass organic chemistry theh bug spray for people enters the conversation. Fortunately high IQ people also tend to be stable and not homicidal maniacs.