Before psychosis, ChatGPT told man “he was an oracle,” new lawsuit alleges

"AI Injury Attorneys" target the chatbot design itself.

See full article...

 

[RZetopan]

Hey, don't sell him short! He's also always been a pathological liar, too.

There is not enough room, short of an entire multi-volume set of books, to list all of his faults. As a kid, he was the terror of the neighborhood by beating up younger kids, and he was also caught throwing rocks at a toddler in a crib. His mother was unable to control him, so they sent him to military school, where he became even worse. His sister did his homework and he paid other students to take his tests, including his SAT. That is why he is so astonishingly ignorant and at a 4th grade level of understanding, at best. Some second grade teachers have compared him to their classroom members. And remember, in the 1770s the Continental army took over the airports, water kills magnets, windmills don't work, produce more expensive power than coal while causing cancer. But fortunately for the world, he has reduced prescription drug prices by 1,500%! etc....

 

[graylshaped]

I'm not a coffee expert, but I'd say that's reasonable. It should be cooled to a drinking temperature after. They were selling coffee that was implied to be ready to be drink without causing harm. Clearly, it was not.

Specifically to that point, in the defense of the suit McDonalds claimed they served at that temp because drivers wanted to let it cool while they drove, but internal documents showed they knew most drivers began consuming it immediately.

One's own anecdotal behavior may vary--but that was the evidence produced at trial. Other tidbits: the "millions" in punitive damages were reduced and the total judgment was (I believe) around $640K, with the final amount unknown as the parties reached a settlement.

 

[wildsman]

Research doesn't support a causal link between violent video games and real life acts of violence.

Research DOES support a causal link between LLMs and a variety of mental and emotional problems up to and including suicide.

How can you post such tripe with a straight face?!

Citations needed! There is no such research.

Studies and reviews have primarily focused on response quality/inconsistency and safety risks rather than establishing causality for downstream outcomes like suicide.

And there is much more of a link between violent video games and pornography to bad social outcomes than LLMs. Btw I'm not a believer of these studies but I'm saying that there is more of a link.

Sources:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611617114

"Existing studies suggest that greater pornography use is related to depression, substance use (e.g., alcohol and cannabis), as well as problematic behaviors, such as excessive gambling and video game use (Harper & Hodgins, 2016; Willoughby et al., 2014; Camilleri et al., 2021). Similarly, younger age of first exposure to pornography has been associated with perceived pornography problems and increased mental health concerns (Camilleri et al., 2021) "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563226000026

To be clear, I don't agree with the people that decry vgv and porn but your take isn't just flawed it is completely baseless.

 

[AI_Skeptic]

Hot coffee was ordered, not ice coffee. The implication is it would be hot. This is also implied by the temperature of the cup feeling very hot to hold.
The concept of coffee being very hot is as well known as the concept of a knife being sharp.

There is a concept of "implied warranty of fitness". She ordered hot coffee. The implied warranty is that the coffee was cool enough for her to drink. The warranty was violated because it was too hot to drink, and it caused harm. Hopefully you understand.

 

[orwelldesign]

Hot coffee was ordered, not ice coffee. The implication is it would be hot. This is also implied by the temperature of the cup feeling very hot to hold.
The concept of coffee being very hot is as well known as the concept of a knife being sharp.

So, sextuple, then? Nobody else, before then, at that time, or since then, served coffee hot enough to cause instantaneous scalding burns.

Catch that? Nobody else did that, before then, then, or since. Because you're thinking "coffee hot enough to burn your tongue" in your head, not "coffee hot enough to burn your tongue off"

Go look at some pictures of scalding burns. They're not pretty.

Are you doing performance art, a la Andy Kaufman? Trolling? Are you just incapable of going "I was wrong?" Are you that committed to "personal responsibility," that you're unwilling to accept even the 80/20 finding of -- get this -- a jury of 12, a judge, and the appellate court? They ruled that McDonald's was 80% responsible. The jury could have reached a different verdict. The judge could have overturned the jury verdict -- it's rare, but it does happen -- and the appellate court could have overturned the verdict altogether.

That's wild. Or maybe you're actually just the disgusting person I'd hoped you weren't. Weirdly, you seem dead set against the idea of corporate responsibility. That's usually the domain of corporate lawyers.

 

[wildsman]

Why do people arguing that this was a frivolous lawsuit insist on treating the jury (again, the people with access to all the facts of the case) like they were unintelligent and had no agency?

Same people who argue that a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct will decry the general idiocy of the American public and question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality and defend qualified immunity.

Pick a lane...

 

[AI_Skeptic]

Its not, hot coffee was ordered, not iced. Why would it be implied that coffee is immediately cool enough to drink when there was no request for ice? The assumption for any fresh hot food or beverage would be that it is too hot to immediately consume.

Because it violates the "implied warranty of fitness". I didn't write the laws.

 

[AI_Skeptic]

I just explained its not implied though. No reasonable person would assume fresh hot coffee is immediately safe enough to drink. No one just gulps down hot coffee without first testing the temperature.

Implied warranty of fitness is a legal term. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_fitness

No reasonable person would assume fresh hot coffee is immediately safe enough to drink.

According to their own research, their coffee was commonly drunk as soon as it's received, and not waited.

(Note: I have no idea why the quote is doubled like that).

 

[chateauarusi]

Its not, hot coffee was ordered, not iced.

Six or seven posts ago, I would have said you're beating a dead horse. But by this point, it's clear there isn't even a horse there. You're just flailing wildly at empty air. It's sort of an amazing thing to witness.

 

[orwelldesign]

I just explained its not implied though. No reasonable person would assume fresh hot coffee is immediately safe enough to drink. No one just gulps down hot coffee without first testing the temperature.

Yet you've repeatedly dodged many valid points that have been brought to your attention. No reasonable person would assume that hot coffee is served at temperatures that produce scalding burns immediately! Because, again, no other companies served hot coffee at that temperature. None. Just McDonald's. Who'd injured several hundred people with their irresponsible decisions!

Nobody else, before or since, served hot coffee that hot. Because, wild, innit, serving your product so hot that it produces instantaneous scalding burns is irresponsibly dangerous.

This is such a spectacularly weird hill for you to die on. A judge, a jury, and the appellate court disagreed with your "reasonable" finding. Did they not use reason to reach their conclusions? Are you saying that you possess superior reasoning to everyone else, including McDonald's themselves? Do you understand the law better than the appellate court?

So, which is it: ideological blinders, an inability to admit that you're wrong, or just being an awful person? There really doesn't seem to be an option d.

Edit: at this point, I can only assume that you don't know what scalding burns look like. Please go look them up. McDonald's bad corporate choices injured several hundred people before this verdict caused them to change their corporate policies.

 

[AI_Skeptic]

hot coffee was ordered, hot coffee was received. To received coffee that is to be consumed immediately is to buy iced coffee.

So you believe that the "implied warranty of fitness" does not exist? Ok. That's your desire, but I like talking about how laws actually operate in the real world, not "but what if..." . Because you want to talk about hypothetical legal concepts that do not exist within the United States, I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. Thank you.

 

[graylshaped]

Honestly thought it was a typo of 'boss' but then I haven't watched Bonanza enough to catch these references - especially when they're not capitalised - (I'm not an American by birth).

Now if you quote Fawlty towers or Blackadder, I doubt you could sneak one by me.

It's Brahms.

Brahm's Third Racket.

 

[Resistance]

Hot coffee was ordered, not ice coffee. The implication is it would be hot. This is also implied by the temperature of the cup feeling very hot to hold.
The concept of coffee being very hot is as well known as the concept of a knife being sharp.

If a surgeon requests a scalpel and receives something razor sharp then the entity that produced the scalpel fucked up and provided something too sharp.

If someone orders a coffee and they receive something that is 185° F them GMs entity that produced the coffee fucked up and provided something too hot.

 

[Resistance]

Same people who argue that a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct will decry the general idiocy of the American public and question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality and defend qualified immunity.

Pick a lane...

Cite 1 case where a jury has granted qualified immunity.

 

[original_mds]

"You will ascend to Godhood, but don't forget to drink your Ovaltine!"

For those who don't know the origin of the phrase "they're drinking the Kool-Aid", read up on Jonestown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

 

[original_mds]

I know, right? It's just like those exploding airbags. Think of the poor executives who lost their bonuses when they had to do the recalls.

Many didn't lose their bonuses because it had a 10 year incubation before the problem literally exploded into an industry-wide reconning. Meaning a lot of the decision makers were already long gone.

I can still hear my coworker's outrage when we started losing all our airbag business to a design capable of turning from propellant to explosive. And he was right.

 

[nimelennar]

question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality

Not at all. Generally, these are no-billed at the grand jury stage, where only the prosecutor presents evidence, and the cliché is that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

If there's a no-bill on a police brutality case, that's probably more on the prosecutor presenting the case weakly than any fault with the jury members.

and defend qualified immunity

What? Juries decide questions of fact.

Qualified immunity is a question of law. It's decided by judges (and often run up the appeals process), not juries.

 

[explanagraphics]

I really empathize with the vulnerable people who are harmed by ChatGPT. They've been flat-out lied to about LLMs and many lack the analytical skills to see through the lies.

My empathy also arises from my own situation. I very firmly believe in AI harm, and I've never chatted with a machine (except for Eliza in the 1970s). Despite my intellectual abilities and skepticism, I've had to stop reading quotes people have pulled from their chats, because my emotional side says, "golly, that sure is convincing me that there is a mind behind it." Yeah, I've never tried cocaine (or cigarettes) either.

 

[wildsman]

Cite 1 case where a jury has granted qualified immunity.

Heh, I know why you're focussing on that part of the sentence and ignored the other part. I never said a jury 'grants qualified immunity'. Only a judge can grant that. But the jury can tell the judge whether or not they believe that 'a reasonable officer would believe the force used was lawful' - this is effectively the same as telling the judge to apply qualified immunity.

Here is one such case since you asked:

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/
"Today, a federal jury rendered their verdict. The panel of eight found that Officer Dustin Dillard, Senior Cpl. Raymond Dominguez, and Officer Danny Vasquez did in fact violate Timpa's constitutional rights during a roughly 15-minute interaction on Dallas' Mockingbird Lane. But they gave Dillard and Vasquez qualified immunity, concluding that, while their actions were unlawful, a reasonable officer couldn't have been expected to know as much."

Also you only chose to focus on one part of my statement. There are so many of cases where the jury completely bungled the case - so many police brutality cases where the jury acquits the police officer even though there is obvious evidence to the contrary:
Yanez/Philando Castile shooting
Betty Shelby/Terence Crutcher shooting
Slager/Walter Scott shooting

 

[Resistance]

I really empathize with the vulnerable people who are harmed by ChatGPT. They've been flat-out lied to about LLMs and many lack the analytical skills to see through the lies.

My empathy also arises from my own situation. I very firmly believe in AI harm, and I've never chatted with a machine (except for Eliza in the 1970s). Despite my intellectual abilities and skepticism, I've had to stop reading quotes people have pulled from their chats, because my emotional side says, "golly, that sure is convincing me that there is a mind behind it." Yeah, I've never tried cocaine (or cigarettes) either.

That brings up an interesting tool for reading about AI. Swap out terms like AI and LLM for cocaine and cocaine user.

For example:

I really empathize with the vulnerable people who are harmed by cocaine. They've been flat-out lied to about cocaine and many lack the analytical skills to see through the lies.

My empathy also arises from my own situation. I very firmly believe in cocaine harm, and I've never done drugs (except for pot in the 1970s). Despite my intellectual abilities and skepticism, I've had to stop listening to people talk about their trips, because my emotional side says, "golly, that sure sounds like fun." Yeah, I've never tried cocaine (or cigarettes) either.

 

[wildsman]

Not at all. Generally, these are no-billed at the grand jury stage, where only the prosecutor presents evidence, and the cliché is that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

If there's a no-bill on a police brutality case, that's probably more on the prosecutor presenting the case weakly than any fault with the jury members.

Not just a grand jury mate. Philando Castile shooting, Terence Crutcher shooting - there are so many cases where police are acquited by a jury not a grand jury.

What? Juries decide questions of fact.

Qualified immunity is a question of law. It's decided by judges (and often run up the appeals process), not juries.

Yes this is correct - which is why I said that they have 'defended' qualified immunity in the past. Note this case:
https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

 

[graylshaped]

For those who don't know the origin of the phrase "they're drinking the Kool-Aid", read up on Jonestown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

Ovaltine shilling was a theme in A Christmas Story.

 

[Resistance]

Heh, I know why you're focussing on that part of the sentence and ignored the other part. I never said a jury 'grants qualified immunity'. Only a judge can grant that. But the jury can tell the judge whether or not they believe that 'a reasonable officer would believe the force used was lawful' - this is effectively the same as telling the judge to apply qualified immunity.

Here is one such case since you asked:

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/
"Today, a federal jury rendered their verdict. The panel of eight found that Officer Dustin Dillard, Senior Cpl. Raymond Dominguez, and Officer Danny Vasquez did in fact violate Timpa's constitutional rights during a roughly 15-minute interaction on Dallas' Mockingbird Lane. But they gave Dillard and Vasquez qualified immunity, concluding that, while their actions were unlawful, a reasonable officer couldn't have been expected to know as much."

Also you only chose to focus on one part of my statement. There are so many of cases where the jury completely bungled the case - so many police brutality cases where the jury acquits the police officer even though there is obvious evidence to the contrary:
Yanez/Philando Castile shooting
Betty Shelby/Terence Crutcher shooting
Slager/Walter Scott shooting

I focused on that part in order to point out that you have very little idea what you're talking about and therefore shouldn't be listened to.

 

[wildsman]

I focused on that part in order to point out that you have very little idea what you're talking about and therefore shouldn't be listened to.

But you do realise you just built and tore down a strawman right?

I never said jury 'grants qualified immunity'. I said they have defended it in the past and actually cited the specific case.

Are you always this dishonest or was this just a mistake?

 

[Resistance]

But you do realise you just built and tore down a strawman right?

I never said jury 'grants qualified immunity'. I said they have defended it in the past and actually cited the specific case.

Are you always this dishonest or was this just a mistake?

None of those examples had a jury "defend qualified immunity". You spoke nonsense because you were trying to talk about a topic you're not qualified to talk about and I called you on it. You can argue all you like or you can admit your mistake, one makes you look one way the other makes you look a different way, it's your choice the image you want to project.

 

[wildsman]

None of those examples featured a jury defending qualified immunity.

I posted this above -

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

"Today, a federal jury rendered their verdict. The panel of eight found that Officer Dustin Dillard, Senior Cpl. Raymond Dominguez, and Officer Danny Vasquez did in fact violate Timpa's constitutional rights during a roughly 15-minute interaction on Dallas' Mockingbird Lane. But they gave Dillard and Vasquez qualified immunity, concluding that, while their actions were unlawful, a reasonable officer couldn't have been expected to know as much."

 

[Resistance]

I posted this above -

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

"Today, a federal jury rendered their verdict. The panel of eight found that Officer Dustin Dillard, Senior Cpl. Raymond Dominguez, and Officer Danny Vasquez did in fact violate Timpa's constitutional rights during a roughly 15-minute interaction on Dallas' Mockingbird Lane. But they gave Dillard and Vasquez qualified immunity, concluding that, while their actions were unlawful, a reasonable officer couldn't have been expected to know as much."

 

[wildsman]

View attachment 128808

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

Sorry idk why that link broke..

 

[Resistance]

https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-...h-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

Sorry idk why that link broke..

I have a guess!

 

[Resistance]

I can't find a copy of the ruling to confirm the reporting, can you?

 

[wildsman]

I have a guess!

Hmm.. You still can't open it?

 

[Resistance]

Hmm.. You still can't open it?

I managed to open it, but it doesn't link to the ruling so I can't verify the accuracy of the reporting. As for my guess, you got the link from the output of an LLM and the LLM malformed it.

 

[randomcat]

https://bonanza.fandom.com/wiki/Hoss_Cartwright

if there are any bonanza wiki editors out there I would like to complain that the author of this entry is obviously and inexplicably horny for Hoss, indicating a potential conflict of interest

 

[wildsman]

I managed to open it, but it doesn't link to the ruling so I can't verify the accuracy of the reporting. As for my guess, you got the link from the output of an LLM and the LLM malformed it.

No - oh ye of little faith. I figured out what happened to the link - look above, Ars contracts the links with ellipsis.

So when I copied the link (I posted above) to repost it for your benefit, it contained the ellipsis.

To wit, look at the upvotes your cynical (and wrong) take got... You guys are just hopeless...

 

[Resistance]

No - oh ye of little faith. I figured out what happened to the link - look above, Ars contracts the links with ellipsis.

So when I copied the link (I posted above) to repost it for your benefit, it contained the ellipsis.

To wit, look at the upvotes your cynical (and wrong) take got... You guys are just hopeless...

Assuming we are talking about juries and QI, we have not established that my take is wrong and there would be nothing cynical about it even if it was.

 

[orwelldesign]

No - oh ye of little faith. I figured out what happened to the link - look above, Ars contracts the links with ellipsis.

So when I copied the link (I posted above) to repost it for your benefit, it contained the ellipsis.

To wit, look at the upvotes your cynical (and wrong) take got... You guys are just hopeless...

From the appeal (I went to the actual court documents, because legal reporting is rife with inaccuracies) and the district court, which had granted a summary judgment -- something juries can't do -- was overruled by the 5th circuit.

Your citation is inaccurate.

 

[wildsman]

Assuming we are talking about juries and QI, we have not established that my take is wrong and there would be nothing cynical about it even if it was.

No I was referring to your accusation of my link being broken because I copied it from an LLM.