Recent content by Grinkle

It is indeed different. I didn't do much back-reading to refresh myself and didn't realize I was taking your response out of context - thanks for responding to the context I meant event though it wasn't what you had in mind when you wrote your quoted snip.

Me as well, based on what I've seen so far. Still, I am not-confident that our existing laws are going to map well to AI if this case turns out to be stronger that what I've seen or if there are future incidents where a jury might see criminal intent in LLM chat logs.

I'm in the same boat. I found a little more meat on the bones in the below link. https://www.npr.org/2026/04/21/nx-s1-5793967/florida-openai-investigation-mass-shooting-fsu Snip - The Republican attorney general, James Uthmeier, said at a press conference in Tampa on Tuesday that accused...

How do you mean covered? What should happen here, for instance? https://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrelease/attorney-general-james-uthmeier-launches-criminal-investigation-openai-chatgpt

I just asked ChatGPT if it re-analyzes the entire context window with every new prompt, and it said yes, it does, there is no 'short term memory' or the like at play, the entire conversation is re-analyzed each time, essentially a longer and longer prompt. Chat says Claude operates the same...

I suggest - AI is only safe if used responsibly - do be worried enough to pro-actively define and regulate responsible use.

To me, and I think to each of you, the crux of AI doomsday concerns vs not is faith in humanity vs not; my own more benign concern of voluntary mediocrity is also a concern around human nature more than AI per se. Some folks probably envision AI going rogue with no human culpability - I don't...

Do you define LLM vs Agent for your students? If you do, could I ask you to share how you distinguish them? In your analogy, is training a dog compared to training an LLM, or to instructing an Agent, or both? Or neither, if you don't find that distinction relevant to the concepts you teach.

I won't argue with the differences you note - if there is a case with a closer set of facts (there may well be) I'd love to read about it. I certainly agree this case was really weak. I think the fact that this case wasn't dismissed because one can't use existing defamation law in cases...

Here is a similar case (similar to how I imagine the situation in this thread might be presented at court if litigated) that according to the first link I posted is the first of its kind. The second link has the result, the first article was written before the case was resolved. Good...

Regarding the anecdotal declarations in this thread, I wonder how it can be possible to overcome the bias injected by ones own experience. I learned exclusively from textbooks until after my formal education was completed. For my core engineering courses, books were not terribly helpful to me...

From your initial post, I had thought you were drawing a comparison to natural selection, that's why I asked. I see where you are coming from now.

My first regulation is strict liability for harms. Much of the rest of the cautious behavior would flow from that. Credit to @Dale , I didn't think of that on my own.

My argument is not around whether or not AI development could be stopped in principle, its around whether or not AI can be stopped in practice absent specific actionable scenarios to motivate that stoppage. Your counter, while imo factual, doesn't address that - I agree putting the brakes on AI...

Costly in what sense?