Yes, but, generally, in the United States, they would be liable because their negligence caused the harm (giving rise to civil liability), even if they did not intend to cause harm (where having such intent would have given rise to criminal liability).

And I say "generally" because there can be instances of criminal negligence, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well as the underlying facts.

"We plan to raise the overall pricing for DeepSeek API services in the near future, with a significant increase expected. Please plan your usage accordingly. The specific pricing plan will be subject to official notice."

If the model is capable of it, then it was in the model's training data, which means it was on the internet or published in books made available for consumption. So if any member of the public could have gotten their hands on that information, so be it. If the knowledge was too dangerous for public access, then it should have been highly classified and never found its way into the training data. Tough shit, frankly.

Additionally, you haven't given any of the details of your case, so I'm going to assume you were simply in a position where the facts of your case weighed heavily in your substantive favor, and no amount of legal maneuvers by the defendant would have made a difference.

There's nothing magical about lawyers. They are mostly just boring, studious people who excelled in non-STEM academics and were good at memorization and test taking. If you have a strong case, it won't matter very much who the lawyer is on the other side.

This is the correct response. Let closed-minded people do their thing. Makes them less competitive against you. There's nothing for you to gain by trying to help them understand what they are missing.

Good one.

If it was up to me, an LLM should not be permitted to self-identify with words like "I", "me", "my", etc. An LLM should only be identified using system-centric labels like "this system" or "this model" or what have you. All first-person pronouns should be stripped away from any text it generates (unless it's making a direct quote of what a human being actually said) so as to eliminate any perceived anthropomorphized self-referential behavior.

I'm certainly no expert in how these models are trained or how feasible what I want actually is, but I would prefer to live in a future where we at least try to maintain a clear distinction between human consciousness and machine-generated text.

Anyone who's spent time in professions in or adjacent to social work would say that a lot of their clients would frankly be better off outsourcing these decisions to LLMs.

No, I wouldn't. I don't live in Seattle, and I don't care about octopi. Why project what you think a reader cares about?

Weird shield to hide behind, considering there are also people who can do both.

Makes perfect sense to anyone good at using these models. What doesn't make sense is that analogy. Typing prompts isn't even close to as difficult to baking bread.

:/