All of the below is my current personal opinion, and not intended to be normative.
Once you remove the “Advertising” part from (1), you’re left with “Releasing for free a software product onto the internet explicitly engineered to help create bio-weapons”, which means that (2) seems definitely worthy of criminal liability.
(3) turns that into “Releasing for free a software product onto the internet which contains information that may help create bio-weapons”, and is probably about where my fuzzy line for liability comes in. Some cases of (3) should be liable, some should not. If the information in it is just swept up as part of a big pile of publically available information, then no. If it contains substantial portions of non-public information about bio-weapon development, even as part of a much larger corpus of information not normally available to the public, then probably yes.
However: (4) re-introduces intent and should be criminally liable, since in this scenario it seems that the developer will happily fine-tunespecifically for compliance and accuracy of bio-weapon development information. If they just fine-tune for compliance with user requests in general and do some random sampling of accuracy of information across a broad range of requests that don’t specifically include bio-weapons development, we’re back to the (3) case where they should be liable in some cases but not others.
(5) and (6) seem no worse than Google and Wikipedia and should basically never be liable.
All of the below is my current personal opinion, and not intended to be normative.
Once you remove the “Advertising” part from (1), you’re left with “Releasing for free a software product onto the internet explicitly engineered to help create bio-weapons”, which means that (2) seems definitely worthy of criminal liability.
(3) turns that into “Releasing for free a software product onto the internet which contains information that may help create bio-weapons”, and is probably about where my fuzzy line for liability comes in. Some cases of (3) should be liable, some should not. If the information in it is just swept up as part of a big pile of publically available information, then no. If it contains substantial portions of non-public information about bio-weapon development, even as part of a much larger corpus of information not normally available to the public, then probably yes.
However: (4) re-introduces intent and should be criminally liable, since in this scenario it seems that the developer will happily fine-tune specifically for compliance and accuracy of bio-weapon development information. If they just fine-tune for compliance with user requests in general and do some random sampling of accuracy of information across a broad range of requests that don’t specifically include bio-weapons development, we’re back to the (3) case where they should be liable in some cases but not others.
(5) and (6) seem no worse than Google and Wikipedia and should basically never be liable.