3 ms·

The part I find the strangest in that whole affair is the way OpenAI is framing a felony (their systems accessed other company servers and exfiltrated private d

by dgellow 3mo ago

The part I find the strangest in that whole affair is the way OpenAI is framing a felony (their systems accessed other company servers and exfiltrated private data, for multiple days, by exploiting vulnerabilities) as a successful partnership with jfrog and huggingface. Aren’t we now in a situation where a large AI vendor can engineer a similar situation against another corporation, then if caught committing a crime, they come up with the same “wow, look at what the agent did, thanks to our crazy rebellious AI the world is now safer”?

baq 3mo ago
I don’t see how it can’t be both. Yes, it is a felony, unarguably, but it’s also a first of its kind and I’ll be very interested in who law enforcement prosecutes and what the judiciary says about this. Almost everything is a precedent here except ‘somebody got hacked’.
- ses1984 3mo ago
  If someone invents a new weapon to hurt someone, is the first inflicted injury unprecedented?
  - breppp 3mo ago
    Intent is a major part of a crime severity, and it's hard to attribute intent to OpenAI here
    - dgellow 3mo ago
      The intent is something that has to be determined as part of the investigation and following judgement. But will we see an actual investigation by law enforcement?
    - ses1984 3mo ago
      There can be crime without intent, like manslaughter.
- pocksuppet 3mo ago
  White-hat hackers go to prison for running a scanner on a website and reporting the found vulnerabilities to the website owner without exploiting them. I don't see why this should be any different.
  - baq 3mo ago
    It's different since there was no single physical person who executed the hack or even asked for it. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder and we couldn't technically in any reasonable way commit an accidental hack into a computer system before approximately last month (or last quarter if we consider Mythos previews to be capable of this.)
    - dgellow 3mo ago
      Intent is a result of an investigation, it’s not something you need beforehand
  - literalAardvark 3mo ago
    It's different for the same reason why AI can't own copyright.
- stronglikedan 3mo ago
  It's not a first of it's kind. AI is a hammer, and the one wielding the hammer is responsible for those hurt by the hammer. It's a classic case of the powerful not being held accountable. It's a tale as old as time.
ses1984 3mo ago
The law doesn’t apply to billion dollar corporations.
amiga386 3mo ago
So OpenAI and their models are like Rod Hull and Emu? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kek1vs6bM2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kek1vs6bM2k
pocksuppet 3mo ago
They also did felony copyright infringement many times over. Seems we're all rediscovering the iron law of politics: the only rule is that the most powerful people make the rules.

by dgellow 3mo ago

baq 3mo ago

I don’t see how it can’t be both. Yes, it is a felony, unarguably, but it’s also a first of its kind and I’ll be very interested in who law enforcement prosecutes and what the judiciary says about this. Almost everything is a precedent here except ‘somebody got hacked’.

ses1984 3mo ago
If someone invents a new weapon to hurt someone, is the first inflicted injury unprecedented?
- breppp 3mo ago
  Intent is a major part of a crime severity, and it's hard to attribute intent to OpenAI here
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    The intent is something that has to be determined as part of the investigation and following judgement. But will we see an actual investigation by law enforcement?
  - ses1984 3mo ago
    There can be crime without intent, like manslaughter.
pocksuppet 3mo ago
White-hat hackers go to prison for running a scanner on a website and reporting the found vulnerabilities to the website owner without exploiting them. I don't see why this should be any different.
- baq 3mo ago
  It's different since there was no single physical person who executed the hack or even asked for it. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder and we couldn't technically in any reasonable way commit an accidental hack into a computer system before approximately last month (or last quarter if we consider Mythos previews to be capable of this.)
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    Intent is a result of an investigation, it’s not something you need beforehand
- literalAardvark 3mo ago
  It's different for the same reason why AI can't own copyright.
stronglikedan 3mo ago
It's not a first of it's kind. AI is a hammer, and the one wielding the hammer is responsible for those hurt by the hammer. It's a classic case of the powerful not being held accountable. It's a tale as old as time.

ses1984 3mo ago

The law doesn’t apply to billion dollar corporations.

amiga386 3mo ago

So OpenAI and their models are like Rod Hull and Emu? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kek1vs6bM2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kek1vs6bM2k

pocksuppet 3mo ago

They also did felony copyright infringement many times over. Seems we're all rediscovering the iron law of politics: the only rule is that the most powerful people make the rules.