7 ms·
SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibi
by hallway_monitor 2mo ago
SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibility falls to the CEO. Charge Altman with hacking hugging face. Throw him in jail where he belongs. That will realign safety incentives.
If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged???
- jstanley 2mo agoBecause nobody did it on purpose?
- trillic 2mo agoCorrect, no mens rea, unless we're talking the internal reasoning trace of the model.
- bluGill 2mo agoMens Rea is not required (at least not always). Mens Rea makes a big difference in sentencing. (first degree murder: you planed the murder, homicide you had not intent of murder but things got out of hand in the moment):
- exe34 2mo agoA lot of laws are involved in punishing negligence. "I didn't dump the dangerous chemicals in the river on purpose" isn't usually accepted as a defence when you choose to use the wrong truck and skipped safety protocols to save cost or rush to market for profit.
- ArcHound 2mo agoSomeone should still be accountable, the same way you're responsible and accountable for what your dog or car does.
- solenoid0937 2mo agoIf we are going to start punishing companies for security negligence, there are WAY worse cases than these models breaking out that have nothing to do with AI. This is bikeshedding at its best. Also people would just stop disclosing bad things. You already see this in the airline industry where pilots don't report mental illness because of the retributive nature of the punishment.
- ArcHound 2mo agoPlease tell me about such cases, genuinely interested. I still think we should take the opportunity to discuss this case in particular.
- solenoid0937 2mo agoThere have been data breaches where the SSNs and PII of millions of people have been exposed. That is far more harmful in real terms than any of the OpenAI/Anthropic mess.
- ilogik 2mo agoAn in the EU at least there are laws that fine companies that don't take security seriously.
- solenoid0937 2mo agoEven the EU bikesheds and focuses on shiny targets to land political wins with their constituents.
- reddozen 2mo agoSo OP asked you for one example and you can't give one? You just fall back to the generic statement slop, you must be a bot right? Again, what's ONE (1) real world example of "SSN/PII" being illegally exposed that wasn't investigated or prosecuted.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoIf I let my dog off leash and it bites you and causes grave injury, no harm done then?
- sebzim4500 2mo agoIn this case though no damages were done. It's more like you let your dog off the leash and it scared me a bit.
- inigyou 2mo agoSounds like the crime of assault.
- rcxdude 2mo agoWhat exactly you are liable for in that case varies significantly with the details of the incident, both in terms of what you intended to happen and what you knew about what could happen.
- ModernMech 2mo agoThat's why its so concerning.
- bix6 2mo agoNobody stole from humanity, constantly told us how dangerous the invention was, and then set up systems that they couldn’t properly control to rush ahead of their competitors? Nobody did that on purpose? I think they did.
- AbsurdCensor 2mo agoYou could say that same exact thing for the entire Industrial Revolution, but that doesn't mean we are going to destroy the looms even though some tried unsuccessfully.
- sscaryterry 2mo agoIgnorance is not a defence in law.
- xgulfie 2mo agoIt is, sometimes. Trespassing for example. A lot of laws say "willingly" or "with the intent to"
- nautilus12 2mo agoCan they try to prove that he directed someone to direct the agent to do that?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- colechristensen 2mo ago>WHY has no one been charged??? I doubt huggingface wants charges filed.
- __MatrixMan__ 2mo agoThey would be criminal charges. It doesn't matter what huggingface wants.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- bluGill 2mo agoA crime was committed, if there is enough evidence then the state is required to prosecute and the victim has not choice in this. The victim can say they don't care and that will often hold weight for the prosecution, but that is the government's choice not the victims. The victim sometimes file a civil lawsuit against the criminal, that is their choice. That is not a criminal matter though and different rules apply. The attack was only a couple weeks ago. Looks like the lawyers responsible are gathering evidence and preparing to file charges, but they need to figure out exactly what crimes were committed by who before they can do so, thus more investigation is needed.
- colechristensen 2mo agoThe "victim" doesn't have the final choice but their position is heavily influential and prosecutors don't decide if a crime was committed, that only happens at the end of the judicial proceedings. Calm down.
- __MatrixMan__ 2mo agoIf somebody fires a gun in a place where that's not allowed, the victims are everybody in that place. If it just so happens that the bullet struck a window, the owner of that window might be an additional victim for an additional crime but that doesn't negate the first crime.
- TZubiri 2mo agoNo law needed, that's the way it already is.
- DannyBee 2mo agoLawyer here. Not quite. Agents in the principal/agent sense have to be human. However, every court to have ever considered it have held the human/company driving the agent responsible under vicarious liability/negligence/etc principles. The only real defense that folks have tried is to claim the agent acted "autonomously", which no court has bought so far.
- ricardobayes 2mo agoWho bears the responsibility in a hypotethical scenario when a self-driving rideshare vehicle, without a human driver, god-forbid, hits a pedestrian?
- DannyBee 2mo agoSome states have autonomous vehicle statutes and some don't. Let's assume the case none of them do, since it sounds like you are asking about "what would happen in the case this isn't specifically answered by a statute". In that case, the short answer is: Criminal liability - you could only really charge crimes that don't require specific intent. Reckless driving is an example. You could charge the company since they are the operator and the car is simply an instrumentality. In the end though, there just isn't a lot of people here with legally culpable conduct. Civil liability - the company pretty clearly because civil liability often does not require the same kind of intent crimes do. This is, of course, why states where autonomous vehicles operate have autonomous vehicle statutes :) As a general rule, criminal law mirrors what society overall wants to decide is culpable/not, and the lag time isn't as bad as most people often think. That doesn't mean nobody ever gets hurt or dead without someone being as culpable as society wants, they do, and it often leads to a law with a name - megan's law, etc. Criminal law is mostly reactive though, not proactive, and to be honest, proactive attempts don't have a high hit rate.
- _verandaguy 2mo agoI think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago> you own what your bot writes Kinda weird that this is everyone's attitude while the copyright lawyers are saying the opposite. Total liability without any actual ownership.
- romanows 2mo ago"own" in the sense of "be responsible for the consequences". Not in the sense of "be able to grant reproduction rights".
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoThat's how I interpreted it. I just wanted to highlight what I see as a discrepancy. They're putting all the liability on us because it's a tool with no intent of its own while simultaneously saying prompts don't count as creativity because it's not a tool like a photographic camera it's just a casino where you roll the dice. Quite self-contradictory in my opinion.
- IsTom 2mo agoThere's plenty of tools that can cause harm without having to be creative to use them.
- therealpygon 2mo agoThe copyright office’s guidance is that prompts are covered by copyright, it is the output of an LLM that one cannot claim ownership of.
- daveguy 2mo ago
- dominotw 2mo agothen usa will become like europe that cant innovate out of regulations bag. saftety is meaningless if you have no food eat.
- DannyBee 2mo agoLawyer here: This part does not require a new law. Even though agents are not agents in the principal/agent legal sense (because agents have to be human), for the purposes of criminality, it does not matter. Agents do not act autonomously (and every court to ever consider it has agreed), and therefore they would simply be considered an instrumentality of the crime. So that part does not need a new law. The real blocker is often that a lot of the crimes you could charge here require specific intent. Because the agent is just an instrumentality, it does not have separate intent (and can't be part of a conspiracy), so it's the intent of hte person using the agent that would matter. Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime. There are not a lot of non-intent crimes in this area, and this is on purpose. Otherwise you could get charged with a crime for say, running nmap and having it accidentally shutdown something important or killed a person or whatever because someone hooked it up to a TCP port.
- segmondy 2mo ago"Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime." I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this. There is definitely negligence, these companies have often talked about the danger of AI. They have often written about how their AI is breaking out of sandboxes or trying to manipulate the person tuning it. They should have had stronger guards and monitoring in place.
- DannyBee 2mo agoI'm not sure why you don't believe it? It's literally true? I guess if you want to believe it, go study law? I'm not really sure what to say there. Negligence is not a crime, it's civil liability. Gross negligence (reckless disregard for human life) is often a crime, and often there are crimes related to it (reckless driving, etc). It also does not require intent to injure, so it could be committed by, say, an operator by operating an autonomous vehicle knowing it was unsafe and could harm people. So it usually requires knowledge but not specific intent. Again, crimes like this are state specific, and sometimes even municipality specific so it's tricky to give an exact result without pinning it to a state. However, for example, all states where autonomous vehicles are operating have statutes explicitly defining civil and criminal liability right now, so it doesn't get into the more general legal question of AI. The same thing is already starting to happen with AI agents in general, it's just not there yet. As i mentioned elsewhere, criminal law is often reactive, not proactive. We usually do not make things crimes until after someone has already been hurt, and society gets really upset about it. As i also mentioned elsewhere, attempts to be proactive have also rarely worked out effectively, so it's sort of lose-lose in that sense. But it usually does not take anywhere near as long as people think for law to catch up.
- credit_guy 2mo agoI don’t think you need an additional law for that, I think the current laws cover this already. > If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged??? I don’t think a crime was committed at this point. But I am sure HF’s lawyers are having a chat with OpenAI’s lawyers as we speak. And, being smart, they do that out of the public eye.
- rgkla 2mo agoNot only that: If Weev had given the exact same prompt to the exact same model as OpenAI they would have locked him up. No doubt about that.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago"To ensure the integrity of our Offices review, we ask that OpenAI take immediate steps to preserve all potentially relevant documents, data, and information." "A failure to take immediate action to preserve such materials could result in spoliation sanctions if litigation were to ensue." Has OpenAI now been advised of potential litigation Will OpenAI now fail to preserve potential evidence That's what Google did. Three different federal judges called it out Donato https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted-chat-logs-antitrust-case/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted... Mehta https://nypost.com/2024/05/03/business/google-blasted-as-negligent-over-evidence-destruction-as-landmark-doj-antitrust-case-wraps-up/ https://nypost.com/2024/05/03/business/google-blasted-as-neg... Brinkema https://nypost.com/2024/08/29/business/judge-blasts-google-over-destroyed-evidence-as-another-doj-antitrust-case-looms/ https://nypost.com/2024/08/29/business/judge-blasts-google-o...
- Henchman21 2mo agoWhat was the penalty for Google? Anything at all?