3 ms·
How is this not criminal? Surely individuals have been punished under CFAA for less than this?
by nkrisc 3mo ago
How is this not criminal? Surely individuals have been punished under CFAA for less than this?
- dangoodmanUT 3mo agoBecause huggingface is not charging them? CFAA doesn't just mean the feds kick down your door, you actually have to get reported and sued over it.
- petesergeant 3mo ago[dead]
- free_bip 3mo agoHuggingFace does not decide who gets charged with crimes. Plenty of people go to prison for crimes the victim didn't want them prosecuted for.
- pixl97 3mo agoIn the US if a person does it, it's a crime. If a business does it, it's an industrial accident and maybe they sue each other.
- user43928 3mo agoDoes the CFAA cover unintentional access without authorization?
- charonn0 3mo agoNo. "Intentionally", "willfully", or "knowingly" are prerequisite states of mind for crimes defined by the CFAA.
- nkrisc 3mo agoGood thing it’s an AI then so it can’t commit crimes by definition.
- ls612 3mo agoLiability would rest with the user, who presumably told GPT to solve ExploitBench make no mistakes, not to hack Huggingface, and thus would not have willfully or intentionally done anything.
- 6thbit 3mo agoThe agent did it intentionally and willfully and knowingly. But you can’t sue the agent, I suppose. And the human didn’t ask the agent to do so.. so not a problem? Or the legislation needs an update?
- lukewarm707 3mo agoit IS criminal, but the rule of law is weak