It's funny that this OP's post was on the front page minutes ago but is rapidly being buried. I had to use the search function to comment on this thread. It has dropped completely off of the list of over 650 posts.
OpenAI and ChatGPT evidently have a ridiculous number of supporters willing to bury anything this uncomplimentary and disturbing.
Maybe they feel responsible.
Hopefully they are held responsible. This incident is the catalyst for changing laws in Canada that may lead to individuals and corporations being held personally responsible when bad things happen. [1]
Wouldn't it be great to see the day when the C-levels who decide to deploy hardware/software/other solutions that obviously will cause deaths and destruction can be held liable in a real court and suffer severe sanctions as a result? I'm okay with the death penalty in these cases, for the corporation and the management that allowed or encouraged the destructive outcome in order to protect profits or solidify market advantages.
> "In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal," it quotes ChatGPT as saying. "Close quarters is its playground."
Yeah but that's not a crime. Having fantasies that you recreate digitally is one thing. Sharing them with other people is another. It's another thing entirely to actually do them though. At the end of the day, we're trending in a dangerous direction of thought crime, where thinking things is a crime. Which it's not. I've already committed multiple felonies in my imagination before breakfast, merely by thinking them, but because they're a figment of imagination and no one got hurt, there's nothing wrong with that.
>"I think if we do the right changes to the Criminal Code, it will change the behaviour of AI companies, because there will be a clear line to accountability,"
Isn't it a judicial issue? How is a chatbot owned and operated by a company materially different than the responsibility of an accident involving an unmanned vehicle or machine owned and operated by a company?
Perhaps because the chatbot is advising the user on how to act in a given situation... and how to circumvent having their chatGPT prompts flagged by the system.
What is "deranking"? Is that where mods pull a post from the list before it gets too popular because the subject matter of the post makes the parent company uncomfortable by highlighting truths when it is better for the parent company if they leave those truths greyed out?
OP's post dropped from the front page after about a dozen comments until it was completely absent from a list of over 650 posts.
Uncomfortable truths - like Sam Altman's relationship with YCombinator; his "leadership" of OpenAI and ChatGPT; credible accounts of his long-term rape of his sister, etc.
At some point ordinary people will get really tired of seeing stuff like this and they will band together, regardless of political affiliations, etc, and will restore sane regulatory infrastructure with serious penalties and full accountability to the live people who decide that hiding behind a corporate veil will protect them and their families from legal consequences. The whole concept of "move fast and break things" will finally have a pendulum effect when the bob topples their empires on the other side of the swing cycle.
Realism would involve using the correct pronouns. There has been a political/cultural impetus towards ignoring gender differences full stop. Men of course have a higher propensity towards violence, it is society’s/ parent’s role to ensure that is channeled for good, unfortunately, as in this case, a higher prevalence of mental illness makes this even more difficult
> seeing a gun can increase aggression-called the "weapons effect
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28918699/
I did not know that this topic has been subject to research.
There is more to the story. They have arrested an American from Bellingham, WA for providing material assistance to the Tumbler Ridge, BC shooter. [0]
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/tu...
It's funny that this OP's post was on the front page minutes ago but is rapidly being buried. I had to use the search function to comment on this thread. It has dropped completely off of the list of over 650 posts.
OpenAI and ChatGPT evidently have a ridiculous number of supporters willing to bury anything this uncomplimentary and disturbing.
Maybe they feel responsible.
Hopefully they are held responsible. This incident is the catalyst for changing laws in Canada that may lead to individuals and corporations being held personally responsible when bad things happen. [1]
Wouldn't it be great to see the day when the C-levels who decide to deploy hardware/software/other solutions that obviously will cause deaths and destruction can be held liable in a real court and suffer severe sanctions as a result? I'm okay with the death penalty in these cases, for the corporation and the management that allowed or encouraged the destructive outcome in order to protect profits or solidify market advantages.
[1]https://fraservalleytoday.ca/2026/09/25/cp-newsalert-b-c-ag-...
> "In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal," it quotes ChatGPT as saying. "Close quarters is its playground."
You have to be kidding me
You know how AI works right? This shouldn't really be surprising to anyone here.
And yet at the mere suggestion of cyber security they cut you off
The shooter notably also created a "Shooting Simulator" on Roblox: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/13/canada-school-....
Yeah but that's not a crime. Having fantasies that you recreate digitally is one thing. Sharing them with other people is another. It's another thing entirely to actually do them though. At the end of the day, we're trending in a dangerous direction of thought crime, where thinking things is a crime. Which it's not. I've already committed multiple felonies in my imagination before breakfast, merely by thinking them, but because they're a figment of imagination and no one got hurt, there's nothing wrong with that.
>"I think if we do the right changes to the Criminal Code, it will change the behaviour of AI companies, because there will be a clear line to accountability,"
Isn't it a judicial issue? How is a chatbot owned and operated by a company materially different than the responsibility of an accident involving an unmanned vehicle or machine owned and operated by a company?
Perhaps because the chatbot is advising the user on how to act in a given situation... and how to circumvent having their chatGPT prompts flagged by the system.
anddddd deranked in 5 4 3 2...
What is "deranking"? Is that where mods pull a post from the list before it gets too popular because the subject matter of the post makes the parent company uncomfortable by highlighting truths when it is better for the parent company if they leave those truths greyed out?
OP's post dropped from the front page after about a dozen comments until it was completely absent from a list of over 650 posts.
Uncomfortable truths - like Sam Altman's relationship with YCombinator; his "leadership" of OpenAI and ChatGPT; credible accounts of his long-term rape of his sister, etc.
At some point ordinary people will get really tired of seeing stuff like this and they will band together, regardless of political affiliations, etc, and will restore sane regulatory infrastructure with serious penalties and full accountability to the live people who decide that hiding behind a corporate veil will protect them and their families from legal consequences. The whole concept of "move fast and break things" will finally have a pendulum effect when the bob topples their empires on the other side of the swing cycle.
[flagged]
Realism would involve using the correct pronouns. There has been a political/cultural impetus towards ignoring gender differences full stop. Men of course have a higher propensity towards violence, it is society’s/ parent’s role to ensure that is channeled for good, unfortunately, as in this case, a higher prevalence of mental illness makes this even more difficult
Is it that taboo? The BBC article has: "Van Rootselaar was born a biological male, but identified as a female, authorities said."
putting women in quotes gives the game up. i don’t know what reasonable dialog you’re looking to have
>putting women in quotes gives the game up.
What does that mean in this context?
It means the original comment is poorly veiled transphobia
they're gonna downvote us for this, thanks
putting it in quotes is done usually to try to exclude or differentiate trans women from women in general. This is transphobia. Trans women are women.
[flagged]