June 1, 2026 • 16 mins
On the Jim Colbert Show Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the State of Florida's lawsuit against OpenAI, ChatGPT and their owner Sam Altman.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Jim. There's dev Hello. Jack is here as well. Yes,
I have a question for Ray. Every Monday around this time,
our good friend drops but to talk about things happening
in the world of legalities and illegalities. That's not even
a word. I'm making that up as we go. It
sounded good. T K Law is the firm. One firm
for Life is the website. The offices are in Longwood
(00:23):
and in they are in the land, and the guy's
name is Ray Friendly.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
I know, Jim.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I think you were out one of the times where
Ray was in when this first came up. But I
think he's discussed it since you introduced a dog to
your family, unknownst to your wife and you said, here, honey,
deal with this.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It comes up frequently in my house. Okay, yeah, still,
how is the dog doing?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Mostly good? Mostly good? But you know, she's a puppy
still and she I brought her in my office a
couple of times, and the girls of my office would
hold her and carry her. And now she wants to
be like hell even though she's a full sized dog now.
So my wife likes to remind me frequently, like when
we can't go on trips and stuff. The reason why
is because I brought home this puppy.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Now she does she just say puppy or does she
add some superlatives to the puppies?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
She says, your demon dogs?
Speaker 1 (01:18):
She says more than that. Yeah, yeah, definitely.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
You know what, it brings happiness and pleasure to the children.
My wife really does love the dog. But it's been affectionately.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Have you learned a lesson?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
No? No, no again?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
In fact, in fact, I was a text message earlier
today about uh, a litter of puppies.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
That needed a home.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Oh dogs and kind uh a similar breed, but the
high maintenance?
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Are they not a little high energy?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, gotta get them working, you know, testing his marriage
on a daily basis.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
It's a cata hula, it's.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
A leopard cata hula. But these were just regular catahulas.
But here, here's what makes it really funny. Here's how
smart the AI is in my phone. So I'm I'm
messaging this person about these puppies. And the next ad
I got was a book from Amazon about how like
thirty ways to stay married.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And not get divorced? Oh no, and somehow AI knows.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And one through six where don't buy a dog just.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Don't don't surprise your wife with the puppy.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah, all right, Rachel attorney here in town again. It's
TK Law, one firm for Life dot Com. Offices are
in Longwood and the Land. He's been joining us now
around six o'clock for many many years. Talk about things
happening out there, and there actually is a very interesting case.
Funny you should mention AI.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Yeah, so brand new hit the papers today. Uh, the
state of Florida is suing not just open AI and
chet GPT, but also its owner, Sam Altman. And you
know what what makes us so interesting, and we were
kind of talking about a little bit before the segment,
is this is just the start of the pushback on
(03:02):
these big companies and these big tech companies. But you know,
you know, Sam Altman just finished this trial with Elon
Musk and and some of the arguments that were made
in that trial somehow found their way to this lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
He says, facetiously, go.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Figure, you know, what's good for the goose is good
for the gander. And you know, people are really coming
down hard and this one it's about safety. It's positioned
about safety, and it'll be really interesting to see what happens.
I know, there's a lot of really interesting, intricate legal
arguments that are going to be made.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah, let's talk about those real quick. What what exactly? Okay,
you say they're suing for safety, So I assume they're
suing because they they assume that ai, open ai and
chat GBT are damaging to certain people who use it.
How are they saying that it is being used and
would cause a loss?
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yeah, So if you want to look at kind of
the breadth of the lawsuit, this would be the the
metaphorical shotgun blast. You know, instead of a rifle shot,
this is throwing in on the wall and sort of
stix kind of thing. And this alleges everything from failure
(04:21):
to protect children from harmful content, and they make reference
to the suicides and the idea that you know, it's
isolating and they know about these things.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Same kind of thing Facebook just went through or has
gone through and still going to continue to go through it.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Very similar misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation. Basically that open ai advertises
as a safe platform. They actually even attached a screenshot
when you when you first register for Ai that it's
safe and convenient and you can do everything with it,
they allege products liability. So products liability is like it's
(04:58):
like a design failure, something to hurt you, something that
hurts you. It's usually a product, which is what we
call it products liability, that hurts you. And and so
this will be at least as far as I'm aware,
the first time that one of these AI companies UH
in their product is going to be considered like a
(05:19):
tangible product a chainsaw or a vehicle.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
And it is kind of unique, isn't it ray? Because
you know, we we've heard of you know, we all
we've heard about AI so far. A matter of fact,
it's been over and over and over. The Pope just
said it last week. The regulation is mandatory, right right, Well,
the problem is is legislators are getting gobs of money
from these AI companies. They want to build these giant
data centers that create jobs in their in their in
(05:42):
their for some time in their districts, right, So they
want to do all this. So it's hard for politicians
to say no to that money. And there is so
much of it. So is there a possibility it's through
these lawsuits that we'll wind up regulating AI. Then it'll
just wind up being the legalities of what we can
and can't do with it. That will wind up being
the regulation of this business.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Usually, I would say, usually the law follows like the
the legislature follows the courts, right Like, the courts will
interpret something and then there'll be public backlash, and then
the solution is always, hey, go vote for somebody and
change the law. And so it's it's not uncommon that
(06:23):
that is what happens, right, is a judge or a
jury makes a determination and then the legislature is then
charged with fixing the law. I think, I think what
will be interesting because you know, we like to think
of the judiciary as this this branch of government that
is completely un and are disconnected and unmotivated by politics
(06:46):
and money. It will be very interesting because we've already
seen in some of these other cases that have been
settled out of court. It'll be very interesting if a
court says that the communication decencies a Section two thirty,
if that applies to AI, but is this like is
this like a Google or an inner proprietor right, It'll
(07:09):
be very interesting if traditional products type you know, concepts
apply because if that happens, the live you know, let's
assume they reject the claim of two thirty and let's
say that they apply products liability claims.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Is there different than the car having bad breaks?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I mean, I think AI goes out of business. I
think that that's how drastic it would be.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Wow. Really, So let's say because the goal is that
the goal, I mean, what what is the actual goal
of the lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Well and so so, yeah, that's a great question. If
that is the case, I think that opens open AI
up and these other companies to punitive damages and injunctive
relief right, which means the state could shut it down.
You know, the state could say you've ordered to stop,
you know, operating within this state or within this jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Would that just be a would that just simply be
for a retail use? And would corporation still have access
to the technology that is AI to keep replacing humans
with the machines to do their jobs because there is
a generational pushback on this technology that is overwhelming right now.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
So that's a great question. And normally, when a judge
ass let's say it charges grants an injunction, it's supposed
to be as narrowly tailored as possible to prevent the
harm that's being complained of, right, so the judge, so
in this example, you know, we are really focusing on
children and individual users, not really corporations, although I do
(08:40):
think some of the misrepresentation claims would apply to corporation.
But let's just focus on the kid issues because that's
an easy one. The court could say, well, you have
to implement greater restrictions so that kids can't use it,
and it's only corporations or something like that. That would
be a really good example of a really limited, narrow
scope of an injunction that.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Just sounds exactly elect into the Facebook. As a matter
of fact, in Singapore today or one of these countries today,
I think it was Singapore just said if you're under sixteen,
you can't get your you are not going to get
access to social media. It's almost the same exact argument,
is it not?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
It is.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
But here's the thing that's different with Facebook is that
Facebook that is being created is generated by users. So
if I if I go on Facebook and I say
that Jack is objectively the dumbest person possible.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Oh pick on Ryan Holmes as a Vegas.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Fan, a Raiders fan. Uh, if I go online, he
can't sue Facebook, but you know what he can do.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
He can sue me.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
He could come after me and say that's defamatory, it's false,
it's not true, you're hurting my reputation in the community.
And he could come after me individually.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Yeah, because the platform could say they just use the platform,
and we did not. We don't recommend using the platform
like that.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
He broke the he broke the rules of our platform.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
And that is the same concept for these internet providers,
where it's like, well, we don't control who makes these websites,
we're just.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Providing the service.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
And so AI doesn't have that because what AI has
done is it scrapes everything together and now it's creating
we'll call it somewhat new content that may or may
not be accurate or true, and.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
It's plagiarized a lot of it, right, But.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
It's directing people to you know, the fsu shooting, have
these school shootings, or commit suicide because well, well obviously
you're sad and depressed. There's one way to end that
really quickly, right, And so I think that there's a
really good logical argument that says we should treat the
AI companies different.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
And even I think crazy, Right, you're making up This
is a fascinating conversation. By the way, So, how can.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
It with mushrooms?
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I've heard, Yeah, but how can it? How could AI?
How could open AI or chag you B or any
of these companies guarantee a court like during a decision.
I mean, how could they guarantee? How your honor? We
can guarantee that this will never happen again? Right, that's
kind of what the court's looking for. Right, They're looking
for an absolute They're not looking for, Hey, can you
(11:15):
give us a ninety five percent? We'll deal with the
other five percent that wind up doing school shootings or
killing themselves or their family. There is there is none
of that. There's no give and take there, Right. So
you know, I don't know if you know it's interesting. Yeah,
I don't know if guarantee is the right word. You know,
more often than not, the way the law addresses these
things is with like a knowing involuntary waiver.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Right.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
So, like you get a pack of cigarettes that says
it all over in bold and capitalized letters, they might
give you cancer, Like We've got some studies they say
it might it might be a carcinogen and it might
give you cancer. Right, And that's what we do with
a lot of things, right, like if you use a chainsaw,
use protective equipment because otherwise you might chop off a limb.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
I said'll bill Ingwall bit about using a hair dryer
in the shower, which it says it says it has
a sticker, and says, don't use this in the shower.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, exactly, that's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
You don't. Everybody knows you don't do that in the shower.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
It's it's a waiver.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Uh. I just remember he was the here's your sign
guy him, but uh uh yeah, So that's the idea,
Like that's how we deal with it a lot of
times in the law. But the way they're framing this
lawsuit and any I think this lawsuit is very broad,
and so it goes and there's a negligent claim in there,
which I don't really I don't see how that's going
to go very far. But it's so broad and it's
(12:33):
really designed to go after the fact that this seems malicious,
This seems like you know that your product is dangerous.
And they took some quotes from some of the that
the interviews for the Elon Musk trial, and they say,
you've always wanted this thing to be a profit maker.
This was never about advancing society. They took an interesting
interview with Sam Altman where he, I guess he's self
(12:54):
described himself as somebody who like doesn't care what it costs,
He's gonna do it anyway like this, this almost and
that's on a financial cost Machiavellian type person. Yeah, yea right,
And so it's it's it's postured in a way that
this seems evil and intentional if I were to put
my own words.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
On it, and I think I would ask the same
question though, like, I mean, how canes You know, Mark
Zuckerberg and Meta have to pay a giant settlement, right,
they had to pay a giant settlement, But for again,
does that settlement guarantee that people aren't going to use
face Facebook nefariously? Again? I mean no, I mean, I
guess you just litigate this as it comes and build
(13:33):
that framework as it moves through the courts. And I
guess that's what Opening Eye is doing now. They're just
kind of building the framework of their operational parameters by
by answering lawsuits and by the way, answering the judges
who have no idea what the technology is. Sure, that's
another thing. You have to explain to the judge what
it does, what it can do. And then on top
of explaining to the judge, then you have to litigate it.
(13:54):
If this is this technology is like for retail, it's
what a year old?
Speaker 2 (13:59):
No, I mean I've been using chat GPT since twenty one?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Oh have you really?
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
I mean, look when I remember hearing about it, well,
maybe more than a year. I think retail, like when
everybody had access to it. I thought it was like
maybe twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
Yeah, it was the end of twenty one, like November
twenty one when I started using it. Interesting because I
wanted to get ahead of it.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Sure, And and every day it changes, and every day
I'm more both surprised and scared about what it can
do because it's it's changing the landscape so fast.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So how do you think this is going to turn out?
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Well, I asked chat GPT that question.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
That's interesting. What did it say? Wonderful?
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Believe it or not?
Speaker 4 (14:39):
Chat GPT things that open AI is going to win
this So it didn't role out the possibility of settling
pre trial.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But uh, you know, here's for what and to whom?
I say, here's the hard part.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
There's definitely a political aspect to this whole thing, and
so you don't really know where the legs are. But
I do think it raises some really interesting legal arguments,
and I've I've litigated a probably a dozen trials where
we've we've raised FOODUPTA type issues, you know, unfairnesceptive trade practice,
those issues. So I'm pretty familiar with the statute here
(15:18):
in the state of Florida, and I can't think of
a good reason why they wouldn't be entitled to damages.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Dude.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Another thing, too, man, is this a you know, short
on time here, but a too big to lose scenario
When you see companies and they're transforming their entire workforce
based around AI. That's a toothpaste tube scenario though that
I can't imagine corporation is going to be really welcome
to walk back if something happens to the point where
it's you know it push a little bit of toothpaste back, Yeah,
(15:48):
just a little bit. Always continue abody, hanglers for a second,
did we get some news.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Yeah, Carnival data breach leaves millions exposed, Florida's massive tourism
engine is slowing, And where you can hear a Taylor
Swift original song. We'll talk about that next during you
heard it here first.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Hright, say little break. We'll come back and get Deb's news,
Spend a couple more seconds with Ray, and then get
the hell out of here. On a Monday
I'm Jim. There's dev Hello. Jack is here as well. Yes,
I have a question for Ray. Every Monday around this time,
our good friend drops but to talk about things happening
in the world of legalities and illegalities. That's not even
a word. I'm making that up as we go. It
sounded good. T K Law is the firm. One firm
for Life is the website. The offices are in Longwood
(00:23):
and in they are in the land, and the guy's
name is Ray Friendly.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
I know, Jim.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I think you were out one of the times where
Ray was in when this first came up. But I
think he's discussed it since you introduced a dog to
your family, unknownst to your wife and you said, here, honey,
deal with this.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It comes up frequently in my house. Okay, yeah, still,
how is the dog doing?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Mostly good? Mostly good? But you know, she's a puppy
still and she I brought her in my office a
couple of times, and the girls of my office would
hold her and carry her. And now she wants to
be like hell even though she's a full sized dog now.
So my wife likes to remind me frequently, like when
we can't go on trips and stuff. The reason why
is because I brought home this puppy.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Now she does she just say puppy or does she
add some superlatives to the puppies?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
She says, your demon dogs?
Speaker 1 (01:18):
She says more than that. Yeah, yeah, definitely.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
You know what, it brings happiness and pleasure to the children.
My wife really does love the dog. But it's been affectionately.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Have you learned a lesson?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
No? No, no again?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
In fact, in fact, I was a text message earlier
today about uh, a litter of puppies.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
That needed a home.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Oh dogs and kind uh a similar breed, but the
high maintenance?
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Are they not a little high energy?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, gotta get them working, you know, testing his marriage
on a daily basis.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
It's a cata hula, it's.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
A leopard cata hula. But these were just regular catahulas.
But here, here's what makes it really funny. Here's how
smart the AI is in my phone. So I'm I'm
messaging this person about these puppies. And the next ad
I got was a book from Amazon about how like
thirty ways to stay married.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And not get divorced? Oh no, and somehow AI knows.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And one through six where don't buy a dog just.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Don't don't surprise your wife with the puppy.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah, all right, Rachel attorney here in town again. It's
TK Law, one firm for Life dot Com. Offices are
in Longwood and the Land. He's been joining us now
around six o'clock for many many years. Talk about things
happening out there, and there actually is a very interesting case.
Funny you should mention AI.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Yeah, so brand new hit the papers today. Uh, the
state of Florida is suing not just open AI and
chet GPT, but also its owner, Sam Altman. And you
know what what makes us so interesting, and we were
kind of talking about a little bit before the segment,
is this is just the start of the pushback on
(03:02):
these big companies and these big tech companies. But you know,
you know, Sam Altman just finished this trial with Elon
Musk and and some of the arguments that were made
in that trial somehow found their way to this lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
He says, facetiously, go.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Figure, you know, what's good for the goose is good
for the gander. And you know, people are really coming
down hard and this one it's about safety. It's positioned
about safety, and it'll be really interesting to see what happens.
I know, there's a lot of really interesting, intricate legal
arguments that are going to be made.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah, let's talk about those real quick. What what exactly? Okay,
you say they're suing for safety, So I assume they're
suing because they they assume that ai, open ai and
chat GBT are damaging to certain people who use it.
How are they saying that it is being used and
would cause a loss?
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Yeah, So if you want to look at kind of
the breadth of the lawsuit, this would be the the
metaphorical shotgun blast. You know, instead of a rifle shot,
this is throwing in on the wall and sort of
stix kind of thing. And this alleges everything from failure
(04:21):
to protect children from harmful content, and they make reference
to the suicides and the idea that you know, it's
isolating and they know about these things.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Same kind of thing Facebook just went through or has
gone through and still going to continue to go through it.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Very similar misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation. Basically that open ai advertises
as a safe platform. They actually even attached a screenshot
when you when you first register for Ai that it's
safe and convenient and you can do everything with it,
they allege products liability. So products liability is like it's
(04:58):
like a design failure, something to hurt you, something that
hurts you. It's usually a product, which is what we
call it products liability, that hurts you. And and so
this will be at least as far as I'm aware,
the first time that one of these AI companies UH
in their product is going to be considered like a
(05:19):
tangible product a chainsaw or a vehicle.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
And it is kind of unique, isn't it ray? Because
you know, we we've heard of you know, we all
we've heard about AI so far. A matter of fact,
it's been over and over and over. The Pope just
said it last week. The regulation is mandatory, right right, Well,
the problem is is legislators are getting gobs of money
from these AI companies. They want to build these giant
data centers that create jobs in their in their in
(05:42):
their for some time in their districts, right, So they
want to do all this. So it's hard for politicians
to say no to that money. And there is so
much of it. So is there a possibility it's through
these lawsuits that we'll wind up regulating AI. Then it'll
just wind up being the legalities of what we can
and can't do with it. That will wind up being
the regulation of this business.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Usually, I would say, usually the law follows like the
the legislature follows the courts, right Like, the courts will
interpret something and then there'll be public backlash, and then
the solution is always, hey, go vote for somebody and
change the law. And so it's it's not uncommon that
(06:23):
that is what happens, right, is a judge or a
jury makes a determination and then the legislature is then
charged with fixing the law. I think, I think what
will be interesting because you know, we like to think
of the judiciary as this this branch of government that
is completely un and are disconnected and unmotivated by politics
(06:46):
and money. It will be very interesting because we've already
seen in some of these other cases that have been
settled out of court. It'll be very interesting if a
court says that the communication decencies a Section two thirty,
if that applies to AI, but is this like is
this like a Google or an inner proprietor right, It'll
(07:09):
be very interesting if traditional products type you know, concepts
apply because if that happens, the live you know, let's
assume they reject the claim of two thirty and let's
say that they apply products liability claims.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Is there different than the car having bad breaks?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I mean, I think AI goes out of business. I
think that that's how drastic it would be.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Wow. Really, So let's say because the goal is that
the goal, I mean, what what is the actual goal
of the lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Well and so so, yeah, that's a great question. If
that is the case, I think that opens open AI
up and these other companies to punitive damages and injunctive
relief right, which means the state could shut it down.
You know, the state could say you've ordered to stop,
you know, operating within this state or within this jurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Would that just be a would that just simply be
for a retail use? And would corporation still have access
to the technology that is AI to keep replacing humans
with the machines to do their jobs because there is
a generational pushback on this technology that is overwhelming right now.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
So that's a great question. And normally, when a judge
ass let's say it charges grants an injunction, it's supposed
to be as narrowly tailored as possible to prevent the
harm that's being complained of, right, so the judge, so
in this example, you know, we are really focusing on
children and individual users, not really corporations, although I do
(08:40):
think some of the misrepresentation claims would apply to corporation.
But let's just focus on the kid issues because that's
an easy one. The court could say, well, you have
to implement greater restrictions so that kids can't use it,
and it's only corporations or something like that. That would
be a really good example of a really limited, narrow
scope of an injunction that.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Just sounds exactly elect into the Facebook. As a matter
of fact, in Singapore today or one of these countries today,
I think it was Singapore just said if you're under sixteen,
you can't get your you are not going to get
access to social media. It's almost the same exact argument,
is it not?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
It is.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
But here's the thing that's different with Facebook is that
Facebook that is being created is generated by users. So
if I if I go on Facebook and I say
that Jack is objectively the dumbest person possible.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Oh pick on Ryan Holmes as a Vegas.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Fan, a Raiders fan. Uh, if I go online, he
can't sue Facebook, but you know what he can do.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
He can sue me.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
He could come after me and say that's defamatory, it's false,
it's not true, you're hurting my reputation in the community.
And he could come after me individually.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Yeah, because the platform could say they just use the platform,
and we did not. We don't recommend using the platform
like that.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
He broke the he broke the rules of our platform.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
And that is the same concept for these internet providers,
where it's like, well, we don't control who makes these websites,
we're just.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Providing the service.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
And so AI doesn't have that because what AI has
done is it scrapes everything together and now it's creating
we'll call it somewhat new content that may or may
not be accurate or true, and.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
It's plagiarized a lot of it, right, But.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
It's directing people to you know, the fsu shooting, have
these school shootings, or commit suicide because well, well obviously
you're sad and depressed. There's one way to end that
really quickly, right, And so I think that there's a
really good logical argument that says we should treat the
AI companies different.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
And even I think crazy, Right, you're making up This
is a fascinating conversation. By the way, So, how can.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
It with mushrooms?
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I've heard, Yeah, but how can it? How could AI?
How could open AI or chag you B or any
of these companies guarantee a court like during a decision.
I mean, how could they guarantee? How your honor? We
can guarantee that this will never happen again? Right, that's
kind of what the court's looking for. Right, They're looking
for an absolute They're not looking for, Hey, can you
(11:15):
give us a ninety five percent? We'll deal with the
other five percent that wind up doing school shootings or
killing themselves or their family. There is there is none
of that. There's no give and take there, Right. So
you know, I don't know if you know it's interesting. Yeah,
I don't know if guarantee is the right word. You know,
more often than not, the way the law addresses these
things is with like a knowing involuntary waiver.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Right.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
So, like you get a pack of cigarettes that says
it all over in bold and capitalized letters, they might
give you cancer, Like We've got some studies they say
it might it might be a carcinogen and it might
give you cancer. Right, And that's what we do with
a lot of things, right, like if you use a chainsaw,
use protective equipment because otherwise you might chop off a limb.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
I said'll bill Ingwall bit about using a hair dryer
in the shower, which it says it says it has
a sticker, and says, don't use this in the shower.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, exactly, that's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
You don't. Everybody knows you don't do that in the shower.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
It's it's a waiver.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Uh. I just remember he was the here's your sign
guy him, but uh uh yeah, So that's the idea,
Like that's how we deal with it a lot of
times in the law. But the way they're framing this
lawsuit and any I think this lawsuit is very broad,
and so it goes and there's a negligent claim in there,
which I don't really I don't see how that's going
to go very far. But it's so broad and it's
(12:33):
really designed to go after the fact that this seems malicious,
This seems like you know that your product is dangerous.
And they took some quotes from some of the that
the interviews for the Elon Musk trial, and they say,
you've always wanted this thing to be a profit maker.
This was never about advancing society. They took an interesting
interview with Sam Altman where he, I guess he's self
(12:54):
described himself as somebody who like doesn't care what it costs,
He's gonna do it anyway like this, this almost and
that's on a financial cost Machiavellian type person. Yeah, yea right,
And so it's it's it's postured in a way that
this seems evil and intentional if I were to put
my own words.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
On it, and I think I would ask the same
question though, like, I mean, how canes You know, Mark
Zuckerberg and Meta have to pay a giant settlement, right,
they had to pay a giant settlement, But for again,
does that settlement guarantee that people aren't going to use
face Facebook nefariously? Again? I mean no, I mean, I
guess you just litigate this as it comes and build
(13:33):
that framework as it moves through the courts. And I
guess that's what Opening Eye is doing now. They're just
kind of building the framework of their operational parameters by
by answering lawsuits and by the way, answering the judges
who have no idea what the technology is. Sure, that's
another thing. You have to explain to the judge what
it does, what it can do. And then on top
of explaining to the judge, then you have to litigate it.
(13:54):
If this is this technology is like for retail, it's
what a year old?
Speaker 2 (13:59):
No, I mean I've been using chat GPT since twenty one?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Oh have you really?
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
I mean, look when I remember hearing about it, well,
maybe more than a year. I think retail, like when
everybody had access to it. I thought it was like
maybe twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
Yeah, it was the end of twenty one, like November
twenty one when I started using it. Interesting because I
wanted to get ahead of it.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Sure, And and every day it changes, and every day
I'm more both surprised and scared about what it can
do because it's it's changing the landscape so fast.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So how do you think this is going to turn out?
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Well, I asked chat GPT that question.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
That's interesting. What did it say? Wonderful?
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Believe it or not?
Speaker 4 (14:39):
Chat GPT things that open AI is going to win
this So it didn't role out the possibility of settling
pre trial.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But uh, you know, here's for what and to whom?
I say, here's the hard part.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
There's definitely a political aspect to this whole thing, and
so you don't really know where the legs are. But
I do think it raises some really interesting legal arguments,
and I've I've litigated a probably a dozen trials where
we've we've raised FOODUPTA type issues, you know, unfairnesceptive trade practice,
those issues. So I'm pretty familiar with the statute here
(15:18):
in the state of Florida, and I can't think of
a good reason why they wouldn't be entitled to damages.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Dude.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Another thing, too, man, is this a you know, short
on time here, but a too big to lose scenario
When you see companies and they're transforming their entire workforce
based around AI. That's a toothpaste tube scenario though that
I can't imagine corporation is going to be really welcome
to walk back if something happens to the point where
it's you know it push a little bit of toothpaste back, Yeah,
(15:48):
just a little bit. Always continue abody, hanglers for a second,
did we get some news.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Yeah, Carnival data breach leaves millions exposed, Florida's massive tourism
engine is slowing, And where you can hear a Taylor
Swift original song. We'll talk about that next during you
heard it here first.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Hright, say little break. We'll come back and get Deb's news,
Spend a couple more seconds with Ray, and then get
the hell out of here. On a Monday
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.