5 ms·

On some level though we have to be cognizant of the potential for harm these models have. LLMs are still a little loosey goosey, and we are right on the cusp (

On some level though we have to be cognizant of the potential for harm these models have. LLMs are still a little loosey goosey, and we are right on the cusp (if not there already) for an agent to hack a bank and steal money for some rando teenager with a penchant for jail breaking. The regulations are and will be negative, but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

yunwal 4mo ago
> On some level The appropriate level would be regulation though? Like I just don't get how we can argue that arbitrarily throttling companies is ok.
- WarmWash 4mo ago
  OpenAI fired the starting gun 3.5 years ago before anyone in the industry had a sound safety plan, and not much progress has been made since. So here we are, it's probably going to me messy and err on the side of over-bearing.
  - yunwal 4mo ago
    I'm fine with erring on the side of overbearing, as long as it's not blatant cronyism
    - mrngld 4mo ago
      Too overbearing though and you get... Mistral? A continent that hasn't been on the leading edge of anything (other that expansion of the regulatory state) for decades, and Europe feels it in their employment numbers. Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment would count as a disastrous recession in the US. In the US we call 2007-09 the "Great Recession", which peaked at 10.0%, and that relatively brief time left a generational mark. That's a somewhat routine number by EU standards. Not to mention you end up with bizarre effects. If the UK were admitted as the 51st state it'd immediately be the poorest. (Yes, some EU countries are wealthy, but they're also the size of US counties, if we cherry pick just Manhattan we could make some spectacular comparisons too) So, it's a complex issue but the tradeoffs are absolutely tangible yet often dismissed.
      - 5upplied_demand 4mo ago
        > Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment This obviously doesn't tell the whole story, because it only measures people actively in the workforce. Meanwhile, a far larger portion of Sweden's population is actually employed compared to the US. Sweden's laborforce participation rate is 76% and in the US it is 62%. Sweden's employment rate is 69% and US's is 59%. Which statistics are more important? Edit: had wrong employment rate
      - yunwal 4mo ago
        Other comments have already mentioned that true labor force participation is higher in all of those countries than the US. But also, they all have better lives than the US. They live longer, access better education, healthcare.
matt123456789 4mo ago
Bank should be more secure, if a random person with an LLM can hack them, they should have paid 100 random blue teamers with LLMs to hack them first to get more secure. Not AI's fault.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  The purpose of policies like this is precisely to ensure that those 100 runs do happen first, rather than allowing a free-for-all where they have to race to secure their systems.
- itintheory 4mo ago
  > blue teamers Pretty sure you mean red team here. While I've heard people refer to any offensive security (eg including blackhat) as 'red team' , it typically means people you've hired or contracted to try to break into your systems, whereas the blue team are people you've hired to build and operate your security defenses. Red and blue team are both your employees / contractors but perform different functions.
  - matt123456789 4mo ago
    Yes I did
jazzyjackson 4mo ago
Robbing banks is already illegal
- bee_rider 4mo ago
  But we’re entering a somewhat weird situation where a careless/dumb person might actually rob a bank by legitimate accident.
  - derwiki 4mo ago
    That’s why I’m selling OpenClaw insurance! /s
- WarmWash 4mo ago
  Society at large is unaware how much crime general laziness and incompetence prevents from happening.
Barrin92 4mo ago
>but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash. there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply? If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.
- jstanley 4mo ago
  This is overly reductive. If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Why is an LLM different? What happened to mens rea?
  - girvo 4mo ago
    > If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Depends, as usual. Intent can matter, but depends on the statute (and jurisdiction) in question.
    - jstanley 4mo ago
      This is the is-ought fallacy. I'm not asking you to describe the existing laws. I'm pontificating on how they ought to be.
  - autoexec 4mo ago
    A web browser can't decide to hack a bank anymore than a LLM can. Neither have any understanding of what a bank is or any will to act on their own. The person who instructs/uses a web browser to hack a bank (even if it's someone else's browser) commits the crime.
    - jstanley 4mo ago
      I think pretty obviously if the user instructs the computer to hack the bank then they are guilty of hacking the bank, I don't think that's the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is what if the LLM decides on its own to hack the bank while the user isn't watching? Is the user then guilty of hacking the bank or not? I think it's pretty obvious that the user in this scenario is at least less culpable of hacking the bank than they would be if they had deliberately instructed it. LLMs functionally can decide to act on their own. You might say that they're not actually "deciding" anything, because it's just a perfectly mechanical unfolding of chains of tokens triggering actions on the computer, which doesn't count as "deciding". But again I don't think that's the crux of the issue.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

yunwal 4mo ago

> On some level The appropriate level would be regulation though? Like I just don't get how we can argue that arbitrarily throttling companies is ok.

WarmWash 4mo ago
OpenAI fired the starting gun 3.5 years ago before anyone in the industry had a sound safety plan, and not much progress has been made since. So here we are, it's probably going to me messy and err on the side of over-bearing.
- yunwal 4mo ago
  I'm fine with erring on the side of overbearing, as long as it's not blatant cronyism
  - mrngld 4mo ago
    Too overbearing though and you get... Mistral? A continent that hasn't been on the leading edge of anything (other that expansion of the regulatory state) for decades, and Europe feels it in their employment numbers. Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment would count as a disastrous recession in the US. In the US we call 2007-09 the "Great Recession", which peaked at 10.0%, and that relatively brief time left a generational mark. That's a somewhat routine number by EU standards. Not to mention you end up with bizarre effects. If the UK were admitted as the 51st state it'd immediately be the poorest. (Yes, some EU countries are wealthy, but they're also the size of US counties, if we cherry pick just Manhattan we could make some spectacular comparisons too) So, it's a complex issue but the tradeoffs are absolutely tangible yet often dismissed.
    - 5upplied_demand 4mo ago
      > Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment This obviously doesn't tell the whole story, because it only measures people actively in the workforce. Meanwhile, a far larger portion of Sweden's population is actually employed compared to the US. Sweden's laborforce participation rate is 76% and in the US it is 62%. Sweden's employment rate is 69% and US's is 59%. Which statistics are more important? Edit: had wrong employment rate
    - yunwal 4mo ago
      Other comments have already mentioned that true labor force participation is higher in all of those countries than the US. But also, they all have better lives than the US. They live longer, access better education, healthcare.

matt123456789 4mo ago

Bank should be more secure, if a random person with an LLM can hack them, they should have paid 100 random blue teamers with LLMs to hack them first to get more secure. Not AI's fault.

SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
The purpose of policies like this is precisely to ensure that those 100 runs do happen first, rather than allowing a free-for-all where they have to race to secure their systems.
itintheory 4mo ago
> blue teamers Pretty sure you mean red team here. While I've heard people refer to any offensive security (eg including blackhat) as 'red team' , it typically means people you've hired or contracted to try to break into your systems, whereas the blue team are people you've hired to build and operate your security defenses. Red and blue team are both your employees / contractors but perform different functions.
- matt123456789 4mo ago
  Yes I did

jazzyjackson 4mo ago

Robbing banks is already illegal

bee_rider 4mo ago
But we’re entering a somewhat weird situation where a careless/dumb person might actually rob a bank by legitimate accident.
- derwiki 4mo ago
  That’s why I’m selling OpenClaw insurance! /s
WarmWash 4mo ago
Society at large is unaware how much crime general laziness and incompetence prevents from happening.

Barrin92 4mo ago

>but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash. there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply? If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.

jstanley 4mo ago
This is overly reductive. If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Why is an LLM different? What happened to mens rea?
- girvo 4mo ago
  > If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Depends, as usual. Intent can matter, but depends on the statute (and jurisdiction) in question.
  - jstanley 4mo ago
    This is the is-ought fallacy. I'm not asking you to describe the existing laws. I'm pontificating on how they ought to be.
- autoexec 4mo ago
  A web browser can't decide to hack a bank anymore than a LLM can. Neither have any understanding of what a bank is or any will to act on their own. The person who instructs/uses a web browser to hack a bank (even if it's someone else's browser) commits the crime.
  - jstanley 4mo ago
    I think pretty obviously if the user instructs the computer to hack the bank then they are guilty of hacking the bank, I don't think that's the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is what if the LLM decides on its own to hack the bank while the user isn't watching? Is the user then guilty of hacking the bank or not? I think it's pretty obvious that the user in this scenario is at least less culpable of hacking the bank than they would be if they had deliberately instructed it. LLMs functionally can decide to act on their own. You might say that they're not actually "deciding" anything, because it's just a perfectly mechanical unfolding of chains of tokens triggering actions on the computer, which doesn't count as "deciding". But again I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]