I didn’t disagree vote, but I’m a person on Earth, and I don’t know how I’ve yet been harmed by the release of Llama 2. For example, to my knowledge, nobody has used Llama 2 to create a fatal disease and infect me with it, or take over the world and kill me, or say incredibly rude and false things about me, etc. So it doesn’t sound like everyone on Earth has been harmed by the release of Llama 2.
Yes, that’s a fair point. I should clarify that the harm I am saying has been done is “information allowing terrorists to make bioweapons is now more readily comprehensible to motivated laypersons.” It’s a pretty vague harm, but it sure would be nice (in my view) to be able to take action on this before a catastrophe rather than only after.
I’m not a lawyer and haven’t taken a course on law in my life, but my impression was that you have to wait for an actual bad thing to happen before a civil suit. If I take your proposed harm at face value, it sounds like it would also apply to anybody publishing a virology textbook and selling it without strict KYC measures, which seems like a bad idea.
[I]t sure would be nice (in my view) to be able to take action on this before a catastrophe rather than only after.
My impression is that this sort of thing is the domain of laws (e.g. mandating liability insurance or criminalizing certain risky actions) rather than lawsuits, but again I stress that I’m just some guy.
I didn’t disagree vote, but I’m a person on Earth, and I don’t know how I’ve yet been harmed by the release of Llama 2. For example, to my knowledge, nobody has used Llama 2 to create a fatal disease and infect me with it, or take over the world and kill me, or say incredibly rude and false things about me, etc. So it doesn’t sound like everyone on Earth has been harmed by the release of Llama 2.
Yes, that’s a fair point. I should clarify that the harm I am saying has been done is “information allowing terrorists to make bioweapons is now more readily comprehensible to motivated laypersons.” It’s a pretty vague harm, but it sure would be nice (in my view) to be able to take action on this before a catastrophe rather than only after.
I’m not a lawyer and haven’t taken a course on law in my life, but my impression was that you have to wait for an actual bad thing to happen before a civil suit. If I take your proposed harm at face value, it sounds like it would also apply to anybody publishing a virology textbook and selling it without strict KYC measures, which seems like a bad idea.
My impression is that this sort of thing is the domain of laws (e.g. mandating liability insurance or criminalizing certain risky actions) rather than lawsuits, but again I stress that I’m just some guy.