4 ms·

> It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. I'm no lawyer.. but this seems relevant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1

> It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. I'm no lawyer.. but this seems relevant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 > knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer.

queenkjuul 5mo ago
If someone else installs it, the author didn't knowingly cause the transmission to the protected computer, the installer did
- infinite_spin 5mo ago
  then slipping malware into a repository wouldn't violate this law either, which we both know isn't true their intent is clear: to destroy information on another person's computer, when that person expects that not to happen (it's a testing library, not a nuclear weapon)
- entrope 5mo ago
  Based on the wording of the law, I think the relevant transmission is when the damage-causing command goes to the LLM. Who causes that transmission? I would say it's the person who wrote software to generate the command.
nialv7 5mo ago
if someone told you to `rm -rf --no-preserve-root`, and you did it without even checking what the command does. is it their fault or yours?
- infinite_spin 5mo ago
  both, and responsibility would depend on who had the greater knowledge of its ill effects if I went around telling people new to linux to use that command to unlock some hidden feature, I would bear most if not all of that responsibility
IAmBroom 5mo ago
As someone else noted, this software is from that remote, tiny portion of the world that is not subject to US law.
- infinite_spin 5mo ago
  Not being a subject under US law does not prevent an individual from being held responsible under those laws. The US courts can still be used to extradite, or otherwise bring litigation to, a foreigner. Furthermore, Germany has similar legislation: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... > (1) Whoever unlawfully deletes, suppresses, renders unusable or alters data (section 202a (2)) incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine. So... I'm honestly not sure what you were trying to accomplish here, but even under German laws this behavior appears illegal.
8note 5mo ago
> a protected computer i dont think in any sense that these computers are protecting if they are intentionally running absolutely anything there's no lock being bypassed, just a polite comment

queenkjuul 5mo ago

If someone else installs it, the author didn't knowingly cause the transmission to the protected computer, the installer did

infinite_spin 5mo ago
then slipping malware into a repository wouldn't violate this law either, which we both know isn't true their intent is clear: to destroy information on another person's computer, when that person expects that not to happen (it's a testing library, not a nuclear weapon)
entrope 5mo ago
Based on the wording of the law, I think the relevant transmission is when the damage-causing command goes to the LLM. Who causes that transmission? I would say it's the person who wrote software to generate the command.

nialv7 5mo ago

if someone told you to `rm -rf --no-preserve-root`, and you did it without even checking what the command does. is it their fault or yours?

infinite_spin 5mo ago
both, and responsibility would depend on who had the greater knowledge of its ill effects if I went around telling people new to linux to use that command to unlock some hidden feature, I would bear most if not all of that responsibility

IAmBroom 5mo ago

As someone else noted, this software is from that remote, tiny portion of the world that is not subject to US law.

infinite_spin 5mo ago
Not being a subject under US law does not prevent an individual from being held responsible under those laws. The US courts can still be used to extradite, or otherwise bring litigation to, a foreigner. Furthermore, Germany has similar legislation: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... > (1) Whoever unlawfully deletes, suppresses, renders unusable or alters data (section 202a (2)) incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine. So... I'm honestly not sure what you were trying to accomplish here, but even under German laws this behavior appears illegal.

8note 5mo ago

> a protected computer i dont think in any sense that these computers are protecting if they are intentionally running absolutely anything there's no lock being bypassed, just a polite comment