4 ms·
They're probably worried about liability. Let's say that Oracle finds out you reverse engineered their DB using Gemini. You can be sure they will sue Google. No
by oneseven 5mo ago
They're probably worried about liability. Let's say that Oracle finds out you reverse engineered their DB using Gemini. You can be sure they will sue Google. Not just for providing the tools, but you could make the argument that it's actually Gemini doing the reverse engineering, and on Google's hardware no less.
- Wowfunhappy 5mo agoLet's say that Oracle finds out you reverse engineered their DB using IDA Pro. Would you expect Oracle to sue Hex Rays? I don't understand why everything changes as soon as an LLM is involved. An LLM is just software.
- nullstyle 5mo agoIf they thought they would succeed, no doubt oracle would sue. I expect bad behavior from multinationals, especially oracle
- lokar 5mo agoThey would not even expect it to succeed, just make an example of the company (the lawsuit is the punishment) to discourage others.
- sunnybeetroot 5mo agoThe difference is IDA Pro doesn’t do something unless you instruct it to, an LLM is unpredictable and may end up performing an action you did not intend. I see it often, it presents me options and does wait for my response, just starts doing what it thinks I want.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ethbr1 5mo agoThis. It's going to be tricky for the frontier model labs to argue they didn't intentionally design their models to do so, when the models take illegal actions. I'm not even sure how one would construct a viable legal argument around that for SOTA models + harnesses, given the amount of creative choices that go into building them. It'd be something like "Yes, we spent billions of dollars and thousands of person-hours creating these things, but none of that creative effort was responsible for or influenced this particular illegal choice the model made." And they're caught between a rock and a hard place, because if they cripple initiative, they kill their agentic utility. Ultimately, this will take a DMCA Section 512-like safe harbor law to definitively clear up: making it clear that outcomes from LLMs are the responsibility of their prompting users, even if the LLM produces unintended actions.
- Wowfunhappy 5mo ago> I'm not even sure how one would construct a viable legal argument around that for SOTA models + harnesses, given the amount of creative choices that go into building them. I'm not a lawyer, but to me the legal case seems pretty obvious. "We spent billions of dollars creating this thing to be a good programmer, but we did not intend for it to reverse engineer Oracle's database. No creative effort was spent making it good at reverse engineering Oracle's database. The model reverse-engineered Oracle's database because the user directed it to do so." If merely fine-tuning an LLM to be good at reverse engineering is enough to be found liable when a user does something illegal, what does that mean for torrent clients?
- ethbr1 5mo ago> No creative effort was spent making it good at reverse engineering Oracle's database. That's the bit that's going to be nasty in evidence. 'So you didn't have any reverse engineering in your training or testing sets?'
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- 5mo ago
- sanex 5mo agoWe need that lawsuit to happen already so we can establish precedent. The person in the driver's seat of the Tesla should be at fault. The engineer using the llm should be at fault. The person behind the gun not the manufacturer should be at fault.
- Iolaum 5mo agoWe shouldn't need a lawsuit. The legislative branch should pass a law clarifying those things, that's their job.
- jon_richards 5mo agoThen you need a lawsuit to determine whether the law is “constitutional”.
- hvb2 5mo ago> The person in the driver's seat of the Tesla should be at fault. I don't think this is a good analogy. For Tesla right now it might fly. However, when their software gets to waymo level of autonomy, I would expect liability to shift to the manufacturer. If anything, I think that would be the true proof of a company trusting their software to allow for autonomous driving
- rokob 5mo ago> However, when their software gets to waymo level of autonomy Luckily that won’t happen.
- dotancohen 5mo agoI believe that Mercedes does offer manufacturer liability.
- kelvinjps10 5mo agoAlso especially if they claim they're selling autonomous cars
- missedthecue 5mo ago
- cortesoft 5mo agoAlso because Google is the one with a lot more money than whoever was using Gemini.
- redanddead 5mo agothey're very worried about liability, it used to be a small thing, now it's as important as being on the frontier sad to see, bc China doesn't give a fuck about liability, this is a structural disadvantage the labs don't feel very protected by government, meanwhile the chinese government is yet again fostering protectionism american industry keeps getting fucked by dubious lawmakers