Archive
Discover and discuss technology tools
Explore the Tiscuss archive by category or keyword, then jump into conversations around what matters most.
Oura Smart Ring Maker Files for IPO
The Finnish company said in September that it has sold 5.5 million smart rings to date.
New Case: Chatbot Allegedly Involved in Mass Shooting
Today, April 29, 2026, a new case, *Stacey, et al. v. Altman, et al.* was filed in a California federal court against OpenAI, alleging the chatbot ChatGPT-4o “played a role” in the Tumbler Ridge Mass Shooting in British Columbia in February 2026, in which eight people including six children were killed, twenty-seven more people were wounded, and the shooter committed suicide. This is by far the largest disaster involving a chatbot to be alleged in court, the largest cases previously alleged having been one murder plus one suicide in one case, and an unexecuted plan for a mass murder in another case. However, the alleged role of the chatbot here appears to be reduced compared to the allegations in previous cases. Unlike those other cases, where the chatbot was alleged to have taken a well-adjusted person and turned them suicidal or murderous, here the chatbot and OpenAI are faulted apparently to a lesser degree, more along the lines of a failure to warn authorities after a user displayed violence warning signs to the chatbot, to the point that the user’s account was terminated at one point, before the user was later allowed to reinstate an account. The plaintiff in this case has not closed off the possibility of alleging a larger role for the chatbot, however. At one point in the complaint the plaintiff alleges the chatbot to have “facilitated or exacerbated” the disaster and at another point cites the chatbot’s encouraging nature and calls it “an encouraging co-conspirator.” The docket sheet for the case can be found [here](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73260511/stacey-v-altman/). Please see the [Wombat Collection](https://niceguygeezer.substack.com/p/ai-court-cases-and-rulings) for a listing of all the AI court cases and rulings.
How Do Developers Correct AI LLMs When They Spread Misinformation?
I watched Last Week Tonight's piece on AI chatbots today, and it got me thinking about that old screenshot of a Google search in which Gemini recommends adding "1/8 cup of non-toxic glue" to pizza in order to make the cheese better stick to the slice. When something like this goes viral, I have to assume (though I could be wrong) that an employee at Google specifically goes out of their way to address that topic in particular. The image is a meme, of course, but I imagine Google wouldn't be keen to leave themselves open to liability if their LLM recommends that users consume glue. Does the developer "talk" to the LLM to correct it about that specific case? Do they compile specific information about (e.g.) pizza construction techniques and feed it that data to bring it to the forefront? Do their actions correct only the case in question, or do they make changes to the LLM that affects its accuracy more broadly (e.g. "teaching" the LLM to recognize that some Reddit comments are jokes)? On a more heavy note, the LWT piece includes several stories of chatbots encouraging users to self-harm. How does the process differ when developers are trying to prevent an LLM from giving that sort of response?
Why People Turn to AI for Art: A Deeper Look
Why do people use AI for art? Before anything, this isn’t about debating whether AI art is “real” art. I’ve already shared my personal take on my last post. This is about something simpler and, I think, more human: why people are drawn to it in the first place. I’ll be honest. I used to mock people who used AI for art. I saw it as a shortcut, a lack of effort, even a lack of creativity. It felt easy to dismiss. But as someone who creates in a different medium, writing novels, I started wondering about the motivation behind it. Not the output, but the “why.” After spending time digging into discussions, patterns, and people’s own explanations, I started noticing something deeper. For many, it ties back to how they grew up. A lot of people didn’t have the freedom to explore creativity as kids. Academic pressure, strict expectations, or environments where only “practical” success mattered often pushed curiosity and artistic exploration aside. For some, even trying to pursue something creative was discouraged or punished. That kind of upbringing doesn’t just disappear. It follows people into adulthood. You end up with individuals who feel disconnected from creativity, not because they lack imagination, but because they were never given space to develop it. Trying to learn a creative skill later in life can feel risky, even uncomfortable, especially when it’s tied to the idea that it might not lead to financial stability. Then something like AI tools shows up. Suddenly, there’s a way to express ideas visually without years of training, without the fear of “wasting time,” and without revisiting that pressure. For some, it’s the first time they can take something from their imagination and actually see it exist. That experience can feel new, almost like rediscovering something they never got to have. So when you see a flood of AI-generated art online, it’s not just about technology. For many people, it’s about access. It’s about finally having a low barrier to expressing something internal. That doesn’t mean everyone using AI has the same background or reasons. But reducing it to “laziness” or “lack of creativity” misses a much bigger picture. In some cases, making fun of people for using these tools ends up hitting something more personal than we realize. Curious to hear what others think. What do you see as the main reasons people turn to AI for art?