Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

Why Forcing AI Companies to Report Violent Threats Might Be a Mistake

Chatbots are far worse at spotting real danger than people assume

When OpenAI announced it had flagged the account of the Tumbler Ridge shooter, Jesse Van Rootselaar, months before the attack, the public was taken aback. Could this tragedy have been prevented? Eight people were killed, six of them children. OpenAI is not responsible for the crime, but it’s hard not to wonder whether a report to the police might have led to a different outcome.

Decode the stories behind the headlines with The Walrus newsletter. Sign up for The Walrus newsletter and get trusted Canadian journalism straight in your inbox.

Before we point fingers at the company, however, two facts are worth noting. First, the shooter was well known to police, and second, officers had made several mental health calls to her home, and she was involuntarily hospitalized more than once. Police also seized firearms from the household, only to have the lawful owner (not the shooter) petition to have them returned.

In other words, professionals closest to the situation already knew a great deal about the risks involved. OpenAI, by contrast, knew only what appeared in conversations with a chatbot.

Yet the debate that followed has focused on whether the government should compel artificial intelligence companies to report threats of violence to police. Some argue that leaving these decisions to for-profit companies is too risky. If an AI provider believes someone may be about to harm others, the argument goes, it should be required to alert authorities. Others caution that such a duty could lead companies to overreport ambiguous signals in order to avoid liability, which, in turn, would erode privacy and trust in these tools.

Both concerns are valid. And it is tempting to think we have faced similar trade-offs elsewhere in the law. When........

© The Walrus