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

"AI Injury Attorneys" target the chatbot design itself.

See full article...

 

[Nilt]

…..I don’t know man.

I don’t think a minimum expectation of personal responsibility makes someone an “asshole”. An example I always come back to is someone who left their wallet on the seat getting their car broken into. The person/people responsible for the bad actions should of course be held responsible. However I think it’s as important to rebuke the car owner for not doing due diligence.

It’s not a perfect analogy in this case since LLMs aren’t sentient but people have a responsibility to understand what the tool they’re using is doing and it’s risks.

Of course it isn't a perfect analogy. The perfect analogy would be someone stealing the wallet from a little old blind lady when she placed it on a seat next to her in public. Harming those who are disabled, even if they don't know they're disabled yet, is reprehensible. FFS, those who do it are treated worse in prison than those who have literally raped children! When even the supposed "lowest" in our society deems such behavior wrong, it's one hell of a bad look to be defending it in any way whatsoever. Ya may want to consider that moving forward.

 

[Nilt]

"ChatGPT told student he was “meant for greatness”—then came psychosis "

Is this what happened to the currently sitting POTUS?

Sort of, yes. It was his father's abuse and the neglect by every adult in his family which resulted in his issues. That's not far removed from someone programming a chatbot to behave this way.

 

[Nilt]

Who would have thought that there could have been adverse consequences from optimizing systems with the objective of being pleasing to, and indistinguishable from, humans (i.e. supervised fine-tuning through reward modeling, with user preference and "natural" communications as the reward metrics)?

Human-like communication is impressive, and pandering to users keeps them coming back, so these things have been prioritized over correctness and safety guardrails. It makes for a superficially impressive system, but the potential consequences are obvious, particularly when these systems are used by vulnerable individuals.

This stuff isn't just a matter of insufficient guardrails. They've literally been trained on websites where this sort of bullshit is said by humans in response to others. They're not well known because they're very shitty places but this is the problem with programming a synthetic text extrusion machine on the entirety of the Internet. All those bad things online also get thrown into the mix, which ABSOLUTELY WILL cause harm to some percentage of folks. It isn't a question of it. It will happen. We know this because it has happened before but the websites are shielded by Section 230 immunity. There is no such immunity for OpenAI because these chatbots aren't someone else posting bullshit on their website. It is the program they created doing it.

This is what's at the root of the issue, IMO. Laziness in programming something like this results in harms. If they'd curated what they threw into the mix instead of putting everything they can in there, it might be different. What remains to be seen is whether any of them ever said as much before they released this software. That will be exposed in discovery if so and will be the rope with which OpenAI hangs itself.

 

[Nilt]

And for those wondering about the particulars of the McDonald’s hot coffee case:

https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/

That also was not the first time McDonald’s had been made aware that their coffee was served dangerously hot, yet they persisted in doing so.

There are parallels with cases like the one in the article. People will claim these lawsuits are frivolous, that they are somehow the victim’s fault, that they just needed to handle the coffee AI more carefully, and so on. Reality is that these systems are deeply flawed and dangerous, and those responsible for them have been warned and know it.

Just to expand on this "hot coffee" case a bit, Ms Liebeck was not driving when she spilled coffee on herself. If I remember the relationship properly, her nephew was driving. He then parked the car ion the McDonald's parking lot so she could put the cream and sugar McDonald's had handed her in the cup of coffee. To do this, she necessarily needed to remove the lid. This predated cup holders being anything close to standard so she removed the lid in the safest manner possible while sitting in a parked motor vehicle at the time. Everybody, at the time, did this if they wanted to drink the coffee while in the vehicle.

Furthermore, she also wasn't "just burned". The flesh on her thighs and genital area was melted. Her labia were literally fused together. I'll leave to everyone's imagination what happened to the rest of that most sensitive part of the human body. Her injuries were horrific and left her in severe pain for the rest of her life. Had she been younger, the case would also have included a likely loss of fertility as well as the possibility she could ever have had non-excruciating sexual intercourse. For older folks, that tends not to be part of the case.

So anybody who wants to whine about this case needs to either stick their dick in a boiling cup of water or STFU about it because they're talking out of their ass.

 

[Mintaka87]

Ah but the burden is asymmetric. The defence doesn’t have to show 'this full chain is likely'.

They only need to show that, given the frailties in the prosecution’s proof, guilt isn't established beyond a reasonable doubt.

A juror can have a coherent doubt about one or two pivotal items ( identification, timing, ability to hear/see, knife etc.) and that alone can block conviction, even if other items 'point the same way'.

In my original post I screwed up my phrasing and implied the burden of proof was on the defense, not the prosecution. Nobody seems to have noticed, but I just want to correct that error. Now let me try taking a different approach to explain my reasoning on why I couldn't vote to acquit.

The prosecution's evidence was not a chain where breaking one link ruined their argument. It was a converging cloud of evidence. No one piece might not be enough on its own to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, but multiple pieces taken in concert are more convincing. Let's look at two different sets of evidence.

Set 1: The woman testified she saw the son in commit the crime and the old man testified that he saw the son flee the scene just after the murder. No other evidence is given, but in this scenario we will assume there is no reason to doubt either her eyesight or his honesty. All available evidence is that they saw exactly what they claimed to see. I think those two pieces of evidence alone would be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Set 2: There were no witnesses who claimed to see the son or anybody else. Instead we have the son shouting that he was going to kill the father and storming out. The father was later killed with a knife identical to one the son owned, and the son claimed to have lost his knife. Testimony from the pawn shop owner is that he had never seen another copy of that model of knife in his life. Forensics showed the father was killed by someone the height of the son, who was significantly shorter than average. When the son returned he claimed that he went to the movies but couldn't say the name of the movie. Again, no there is no reason to doubt any of this. I think these pieces of evidence taken together would also be considered enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think this illustrates that in order to get an acquittal the defense can't just rebut one piece of evidence. They would have to rebut enough of the prosecution's evidence to make the prosecution's narrative fall apart. I think my two examples show that this requires refuting the majority of the prosecution's claims, but every piece of evidence you refute changes the space of possibilities for what really happened.

Claiming the old man didn't see what he claimed to see requires him to be either mistaken or lying. If he was lying because he was lonely (as the jury in the movie concludes) then you are stuck with an old man who is willing to commit perjury against a man whose life is at stake for the sake of a couple of hours of attention. Each piece of evidence refuted the way the jury did leads you closer to the timeline I pointed out of witnesses lying for petty reasons and the real murderer having a surprisingly high number of things in common with the son by sheer coincidence.

An acquittal does not require believing an elaborate alternative narrative: it can rest on 'I'm not sure it was him'.

OK, but how do you say "I'm not sure it was him" in the face of multiple, independent pieces of unrefuted evidence? Besides flat-out jury nullification, I mean.

 

[Nilt]

But she requested hot fresh coffee.. and she received hot fresh coffee.

No, what she ordered was "coffee with cream and sugar" and the company chose not to hand her that. Instead they handed her a cup of coffee with some cream and sugar for her to assemble herself. Which, sure, that's fine if your coffee isn't so hot it will fuse your genitals together in under 3 seconds if you happen to spill it on your lap. The problem is this: that coffee was that hot and the company damned well knew it because it had happened to other people literally hundreds of times before that case! This wasn't a one-off. It was a company continuing a pattern of behavior they knew caused harm. The really fucked up part of that case is there was never a criminal charge because that's literally gross negligence, which is criminal in all 50 states and was back then, too.

 

[Mindstatic]

One of the things I appreciated about the Cumberbatch/Freeman series was that they gave Holmes' probabilities plays a tweak on the "House" treatment, where the initial diagnosis is incomplete, and that his wily foes make him play the Vizzini game. Nor, do I think, was the literary version quite as big on the mathematics of probability, but more on positioning things in binary terms. To the extent Conan Doyle took liberties with that I'd have to pick them up for a re-read. It has been a while.

Not as big a corpus, but the Benoit Blanc movies show a sense of him knowing when he can prove something and when he knows he has to bluff someone into giving away their game.

1) You were kind to me in the same thread as Orwell a couple years ago. Thank you to you as well, Grayl.

2) The Cumberbatch/Freeman serious I enjoyed because anyone that can't enjoy those two together has no soul and a profoundly sad and pointless life.

3) I read a couple of the Doyle books about a decade ago, and the through sheer coincidence read the Discworld book right after where Vimes has a thought about their version of Sherlock that's pretty much my (stolen) point above.

4) Only watched the first Blanc movie so far and absolutely loved it!

ETA: And I forgot to hit pause while typing this and my stupid druid just died

 

[Nilt]

(And before anyone objects with a description of the modern table saw failsafe where the blade is instantly arrested on sensing flesh, you'll need consider the fact that AI tools don't have a corresponding instant killswitch on treading into psychologically problematic territory.)

What's even worse is while it's not a killswitch, OpenAI has a system that is supposed to flag cases such as this for human review and intervention. In 2 other cases, discovery showed that very system flagged literally hundreds of individual chats with particular users yet OpenAI literally did nothing at all. So they're even ignoring the very guardrails that were supposed to catch this shit in the first place, albeit after the potentially problematic output had already been extruded.

 

[Nilt]

Well, you've obviously never dated me, lol

I haven't either but humans are fallible. Nobody has to be perfect to be worthy of that. Seriously, you are more than the sum of your flaws.

 

[orwelldesign]

Well, you've obviously never dated me, lol

Hey, don't you talk about one of my friends that way.

 

[Mindstatic]

I haven't either but humans are fallible. Nobody has to be perfect to be worthy of that. Seriously, you are more than the sum of your flaws.

Hey, don't you talk about one of my friends that way.

It was making light of how many women have thrown rocks at my head during the breakup, lol
Trust me, I'm loooooooooong over it - haven't bothered dating in about 25 years now (except for 3 months with an alcoholic lesbian - another long story, but quite fun).

And to be clear: I'm autistic, so I'm not the problem - the social interaction is far more hassle than it's worth unless Sofia Vargara shows up.

 

[orwelldesign]

It was making light of how many women have thrown rocks at my head during the breakup, lol
Trust me, I'm loooooooooong over it - haven't bothered dating in about 25 years now (except for 3 months with an alcoholic lesbian - another long story, but quite fun).

And to be clear: I'm autistic, so I'm not the problem - the social interaction is far more hassle than it's worth unless Sofia Vargara shows up.

You're autistic? Like, you do watercolors or... ? Acrylics? Portraiture?

 

[sjl]

Well, you've obviously never dated me, lol

I need to pull you up on this.

Being "date worthy" and being worth of compassion and kindness are not the same thing. There are expectations within a relationship that are somewhat orthogonal to being compassionate and kind; it's as much about the give and take between the couple as anything else.

I have plenty of issues that mean that I'm a difficult romantic partner. I'm aware of them, and I try to work on them, but they're there. But that doesn't mean that I can't - or won't - extend kindness and support to those around me when it's needed. The reverse holds true. Irrespective of whether somebody is a good dating partner, they are still worthy of compassion and kindness. (Unless they're a complete psychopath like Stephen Miller. Seriously, that guy deserves all the bad luck he gets and then lots more. In fact, I would not be unhappy if the world's supply of bad luck ended up on his doorstep for the next decade. But that's an exception, not the rule, and the default assumption on my part is that a given individual is not such an exception.)

Be kind to yourself, and when you're in a position to do so, extend that kindness to those around you. Life's too short to do anything else, in my opinion.

 

[Mindstatic]

I need to pull you up on this.

Being "date worthy" and being worth of compassion and kindness are not the same thing. There are expectations within a relationship that are somewhat orthogonal to being compassionate and kind; it's as much about the give and take between the couple as anything else.

I have plenty of issues that mean that I'm a difficult romantic partner. I'm aware of them, and I try to work on them, but they're there. But that doesn't mean that I can't - or won't - extend kindness and support to those around me when it's needed. The reverse holds true. Irrespective of whether somebody is a good dating partner, they are still worthy of compassion and kindness. (Unless they're a complete psychopath like Stephen Miller. Seriously, that guy deserves all the bad luck he gets and then lots more. In fact, I would not be unhappy if the world's supply of bad luck ended up on his doorstep for the next decade. But that's an exception, not the rule, and the default assumption on my part is that a given individual is not such an exception.)

Be kind to yourself, and when you're in a position to do so, extend that kindness to those around you. Life's too short to do anything else, in my opinion.

It was a joke. Seriously people lighten-up - self deprecating humour is a good thing. And there's much more important things to be worrying about right now than dates.

 

[sjl]

It was a joke. Seriously people lighten-up - self deprecating humour is a good thing.

To a point. Past that point, it becomes damaging, because it can easily slip into negative self talk. Been there, done that.

As long as it hasn’t reached that point for you, it’s fine. My concern is the possibility that it has approached, or might approach, that line. It’s harder to judge because the limits vary between people, and also shift with the general state of one’s mental health. Also, y’know, the whole text based communication thing makes it hard to judge whether it might be encroaching on the dangerous territory.

Just… be careful, and stay kind to yourself. That’s all any of us can ask.

 

[Nilt]

It was a joke. Seriously people lighten-up - self deprecating humour is a good thing. And there's much more important things to be worrying about right now than dates.

It's all good. Folks around here mostly just like to be sure is all. Things going unsaid are sometimes be what folks most need to hear. It can also be useful for lurkers at times.

 

[Mindstatic]

It's all good. Folks around here mostly just like to be sure is all. Things going unsaid are sometimes be what folks most need to hear. It can also be useful for lurkers at times.

Which, ironicly, was half the reason I mentioned a small kindness from a couple years ago - which was on my mind because the apartment managers that got fired by the landlord in October turned out to be MAGA levels of corrupt and incompetant (they're getting sued by half the tenants and the landlord and criminally investigated and literal forensic accountants have had to be hired to try to fix all our accounts. They even stole all the goddamn mops from the maintenance closet when they left - as we discovered I woke up Christmas morning to a busted kitchen sink and slightly flooded apartment.)

Next thing I know, people are acting like I'm suicidal over the equivelant of a knock-knock joke. I definately understand the sentiment - especially in these times - but ya'll don't know the astonishing depths of love my parents raised me with.

I appreciate the concern, but I'm actually doing better than most. And there are currently several million people that really need that help far more than I ever have, so please focus more on them.

ETA: Unless this was all over my stupid druid getting killed, in which case, I just reloaded from last save and used 4 simultaneous fireballs to kill a single orc because that's why we have video games.

 

[graylshaped]

ETA: And I forgot to hit pause while typing this and my stupid druid just died

Among all this kindness, let's pause and offer our respects to the stupid druid, who gave his all so you might muse.

Hey! The chicken lives...

 

[nimelennar]

I am sure that someone could, to go back to the McDonald's case, go over the transcripts and jury instructions and evidence exhibits and come to a different conclusion than the jury did. Heck, if McDonald's thought it was a definitively losing case, they would have settled rather than going to trial.

But insisting that the case was unfairly decided having done none of that work, simply because "hot coffee is served hot," and therefore the jury must have ruled wrong... It's an arrogant disregard to the fact that life and legal issues are often more complicated than a ten-thousand-foot overview might suggest.

Yes, judges/juries see more evidence than we do but that doesn’t make their conclusions immune from criticism. Expertise increases probability of correctness - it doesn’t guarantee it.

It isn't arrogance to have coherent, substantive, articulable differences with an expert or with 12 non-experts selected at random.

WTF?!

That's literally what I just said. You even quoted it! That the jury may not have been correct, that people who are given the same information about the case that the jury had could reasonably come to a different conclusion, that I wasn't calling that "arrogance," but when people didn't bother to do the homework necessary to have a "coherent, substantive, articulable" difference with the jury.

I said all of that. In the part that you quoted immediately above that paragraph you wrote.

What the heck are you responding to?!

That the jury believed that the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable but they acquitted anyway. Anyway, this is a moot point - this never happens.

If it never happens and is a moot point, why did you bring it up?

Actually, let's run through that whole quote chain.

This is compounded by the fact she expressly ordered hot coffee, and not iced coffee. This is like ordering a knife and complaining that its sharp.

Okay, this establishes that the subject of the conversation is the "hot coffee" case.

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?

And I'm complaining that the specific people who tend to criticize this case usually fail to have any respect whatsoever for the intelligence of the jury.

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...

My specific complaint about specific people treating a specific jury like they were idiots is immediately strawmanned into "a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct."

And then whatabouted into a discussion about not being so deferential to juries in cases police brutality. Fine, I'm game.

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.

My point here is, "acquittals (or no-bills) are not necessarily attributable to the jury." It's a recurring theme in this thread!

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

Okay, you know what? Fair. I'll concede the point: acquittals in police brutality cases are not just a grand jury thing.

You offer examples. I dig down on both of them in subsequent posts, but the reply chain we're talking about focuses on Castile, so we'll do the same here.

Your inital premise is that the "Same people who argue that a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct will [...] question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality and defend qualified immunity."

So, since I'm someone who (in your strawman) is treating the jury of the McDonald's case as "sacrosanct," your contention is that I should be critical of the jury acquitting Philando Castle.

But again, I'm not sure why you're blaming the jury and not the prosecutors.

From the Crutcher case, a juror 'said the jury felt that the state’s prosecution “was shoddy,” and that they could have gotten a conviction “had they done a better job.”'

Except, contrary to your expectations, I'm not critical of the jury. I'm critical of the prosecution, because so was the jury.

Cherry picking quotes to support your narrative I see. From the article you cited:

"[The anonymous juror] said that while he never came out and said he felt Shelby was guilty, he will always regret not “hanging the jury.”

“At one point I talked with another juror about just hanging the jury, and making the state try the case again,” he said. “We really agreed that if they did a better job, they could have convicted her. And maybe the right thing to do was just make them do it again, maybe they do something different and a different jury convicts her.

“I’ll always feel like a coward for not doing that.”

You basically reiterate that I should be critical of the jury, because a juror who thought the case was provable but not proven didn't vote to convict and force a mistrial, which the juror regrets.

I'll accept that that's something a jury could choose to do. But there's a reason why they aren't given the option of returning a "mistrial" verdict. They're supposed to be deciding whether the prosecution proved their case or not. If they didn't, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause prevents the state from trying the case a second time.

I point out that's not the jury's job and not what they swore to do. If they are not given enough evidence to convict, they acquit. And now we get into the "null verdict" thing. Reminder: Shelby was acquitted of Castile's murder.

Yes in that case the jury can ask for additional questions to ascertain facts and/or return a null verdict.

What is a "null verdict," in this scenario?

That the jury believed that the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable but they acquitted anyway.

To summarize:

• Because I think that criticism of the hot coffee verdict tends to be uninformed and dismissive of the jury's competence, I am arguing "that a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct." Which is a strawman of my position.
• But at the same time, you pigeonhole me into being someone who will "question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality"
• After a brief exchange where I deflect into grand juries, you bring up the example of the Castile trial as one that I, in the role you have pigeonholed me into, should be questioning.
• I point out that a juror who has spoken publicly on their acquittal vote has blamed the sloppiness of the prosecution for the acquittal.
• You point out that that same juror regrets the acquittal, as, if the state had been permitted to violate the Fifth Amendment and prosecute the case a second time, they might have actually done it properly.
• I reply that acquittal is the correct verdict if the prosecution hasn't proved their case.
• You bring up jury nullification (i.e. acquittal of a person even after the prosecution has proven their case) as a possible option. On a case where the jury acquitted because the state hadn't proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What?

Seriously: what?!

You know what. I'm done. I'm not even curious why Batman came up anymore.

 

[internetomancer]

The title put me in mind of the Self-Esteem Movement from the 90s, but I'm pretty sure parents weren't trying to convince their kids they'd become oracles or religious figures, just high-achieving workers. I also have to question what DeCruise's mental state was prior to using ChatGPT, because I have a hard time believing that reading text output from a chatbot gave an otherwi0se mentally-healthy man bipolar disorder.

Yeah, it's not clear how much blame is correct to assign. Would they have had the same breakdown later from something else? Would we blame that something else? What's the aggregate added mental stress from these things?

If nothing else, I think these stories tell us a little about how fragile people can be broken by things that other people take for granted as harmless. Like, presumably a lot of people lose their minds due to social networks, but those people don't try to make a legal case.

We all have this high level notion that modern life is unhealthy and strange, but we don't see the play-by-play of how individuals spiral from it.

 

[wildsman]

I said all of that. In the part that you quoted immediately above that paragraph you wrote.

What the heck are you responding to?!

I wasn't contradicting your entire post: I was reinforcing an epistemic principle since you used the word 'arrogance' in there.

If you agree with me, cool.

If it never happens and is a moot point, why did you bring it up?

Because it is technically an option present to a jury even though it is rarely exercised.

Actually, let's run through that whole quote chain.

Okay, this establishes that the subject of the conversation is the "hot coffee" case.

And I'm complaining that the specific people who tend to criticize this case usually fail to have any respect whatsoever for the intelligence of the jury.

My specific complaint about specific people treating a specific jury like they were idiots is immediately strawmanned into "a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct."

It's not a strawman. Just like you were talking about 'specific' people, I'm talking about specific people when I wrote:
'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'

You never contradicted this part of my comment in your reply - you specifically chose to go down the police brutality rabbithole.

Either you were happy with accepting it or you thought it didn't apply to you, but why would you go back and dig it up now?

If you don't hold that position, my comment doesn't apply to you.

And then whatabouted into a discussion about not being so deferential to juries in cases police brutality. Fine, I'm game.

My point here is, "acquittals (or no-bills) are not necessarily attributable to the jury." It's a recurring theme in this thread!

Okay, you know what? Fair. I'll concede the point: acquittals in police brutality cases are not just a grand jury thing.

You offer examples. I dig down on both of them in subsequent posts, but the reply chain we're talking about focuses on Castile, so we'll do the same here.

Your inital premise is that the "Same people who argue that a jury's decision is somehow sacrosanct will [...] question the juries when they rule to exonerate police of police brutality and defend qualified immunity."

So, since I'm someone who (in your strawman) is treating the jury of the McDonald's case as "sacrosanct," your contention is that I should be critical of the jury acquitting Philando Castle.

Except, contrary to your expectations, I'm not critical of the jury. I'm critical of the prosecution, because so was the jury.

You basically reiterate that I should be critical of the jury, because a juror who thought the case was provable but not proven didn't vote to convict and force a mistrial, which the juror regrets.

I point out that's not the jury's job and not what they swore to do. If they are not given enough evidence to convict, they acquit. And now we get into the "null verdict" thing. Reminder: Shelby was acquitted of Castile's murder.

Fair enough. I'll grant that I agree with you on this position now. I have changed my mind a bit more on the role of the jury - I was wrong to blame them when they're statutorily limited in what they can do.

Mea culpa on that. But I do think we can criticise the outcome without laying the blame on the jury - i.e. the system failed to mete out justice.

 

[graylshaped]

But I do think we can criticise the outcome without laying the blame on the jury - i.e. the system failed to mete out justice.

You can, but you would be wrong. As a result of this trial, McDonald's changed its extensively documented practice of serving scalding hot coffee in order to save money, which had injured multiple people in addition to this specific plaintiff. "The system" worked just fine to encourage a stonewalling corporation who had refused to simply cover medical bills to settle with the injured party and adjust its unsafe practice.

Because you and many others chose to accept the anti-tort pro-business PR spin is more an indictment of your lack of critical thinking than it is of the legal system. Even when you realize maybe your original thinking was misguided, you can't just admit you didn't understand the case at all.

 

[wildsman]

You can, but you would be wrong. As a result of this trial, McDonald's changed its extensively documented practice of serving scalding hot coffee in order to save money, which had injured multiple people in addition to this specific plaintiff. "The system" worked just fine to encourage a stonewalling corporation who had refused to simply cover medical bills to settle with the injured party and adjust its unsafe practice.

Because you and many others chose to accept the anti-tort pro-business PR spin is more an indictment of your lack of critical thinking than it is of the legal system. Even when you realize maybe your original thinking was misguided, you can't just admit you didn't understand the case at all.

Not sure what you're on about. I don't have any problem with McD decision.

I was only ever talking about specific hypocrisy of some people suddenly respecting jury decisions and their intelligence, while often decrying them in the very next breath on another case.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

It does not matter this was said by a member of a unique subgenre of ambulance-chasing-like attorneys: this is the exactly correct question

There is a question as to how much of this sycophancy was intentionally built in; I think there is an additional effect that might be hard for them to remove which is that it is learning from human conversations on the web and those tend to be sycophantic by nature. People are trying to be pleasant with each other (sometimes!) and empathizing with each other and so I think the natural training bias will be towards that kind of behavior. But then the question is why or how they prevent it from trolling and "greater internet fuckwad" behaviour, which is also common on the internet.

 

[SixDegrees]

There is a question as to how much of this sycophancy was intentionally built in; I think there is an additional effect that might be hard for them to remove which is that it is learning from human conversations on the web and those tend to be sycophantic by nature. People are trying to be pleasant with each other (sometimes!) and empathizing with each other and so I think the natural training bias will be towards that kind of behavior. But then the question is why or how they prevent it from trolling and "greater internet fuckwad" behaviour, which is also common on the internet.

Internet fuckwads, though, incite rage, and rage boosts engagement. A lot more than friendly, agreeable chatter. So there's going to be a heavy bias toward rage inducement, because money.

 

[graylshaped]

There is a question as to how much of this sycophancy was intentionally built in; I think there is an additional effect that might be hard for them to remove which is that it is learning from human conversations on the web and those tend to be sycophantic by nature. People are trying to be pleasant with each other (sometimes!) and empathizing with each other and so I think the natural training bias will be towards that kind of behavior. But then the question is why or how they prevent it from trolling and "greater internet fuckwad" behaviour, which is also common on the internet.

It matters if we feel compelled to prove gross negligence rather than simple. Strict liability means it doesn't matter--the defective product is defective and its manufacturer is liable. First, let's agree on its defective nature. There isn't much productive reason to debate Thing 2--intent--without that.

If it makes you feel better, the relevant corporate lawyers are heavily focused on hiding any evidence of Thing 2 already, which is why we are seeing so many of these cases settled, and why OpenAI is quibbling over every tiny scrap of discovery on cases such as the NYT action.