Something to watch: The AI labs will lean into human-to-human parallels for their tech when it suits their interests. And they will resist such comparisons when it doesn’t.
When the question is about sharing their proprietary first-party data, OpenAI compares ChatGPT to a doctor and argues that users have a legal right to doctor-patient confidentiality.
When the question becomes about liability for giving dangerously bad advice or screwing up a task given by a user, OpenAI will insist that ChatGPT is software and cannot legally be held liable for malpractice like a doctor can be.
Sam Altman reveals a legal problem with ChatGPT that nobody thought about even a year ago
"People talk about the most personal things in their lives to ChatGPT. Young people especially use it as a therapist, a life coach"
"If you talk to a therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about those problems, there's legal privilege for it. We haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT"
"If you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff and then there's a lawsuit, we could be required to produce that. I think that's very screwed up"
"We should have the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI that we do with a therapist or a doctor"
"No one had to think about that even a year ago. Now I think it's this huge issue"