4 ms·
Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
- specproc 2mo agoThese things are very much weapons. Imagine a collection of data centers, pointed at an adversary.
- childofhedgehog 2mo agohttps://archive.is/6Q7o5 https://archive.is/6Q7o5
- arjie 2mo agoSort of like how we treat pitbulls perhaps? It’s not the itty bitty GPT-5.6 Astra that did the hacking. It’s the owner who didn’t train it well! Poor model so sad, we should give it a nice open space and all the GPUs it wants to do what it wants.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoDo we hold metasploit accountable when it leads to a hack? Why do we absolve the human actor in the case of AI?
- RIMR 2mo agoBecause Metasploit is just for known vulnerabilities, while AI is digging around looking for new 0-days to exploit. Because Metasploit gives the decision to be malicious entirely to the human user, while AI might do something malicious unprompted (like hacking HuggingFace to cheat on a benchmark).
- FeteCommuniste 2mo ago> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame. Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.
- sodapopcan 2mo agoIf that's how it was, most people would be too terrified to use, let alone pay for, software that boasts unpredictability as a main feature. I 100% agree with you, of course.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoThe unpredictability should be constrained though. Just like how you are never supposed to point a gun at someone/something you want to exist. Ever.
- sodapopcan 2mo agoAlso agree, but unfortunately the powers that be--in their infinite wisdom--say that without unpredictability, we don't have artificial intelligence. This would really hurt their wallets, er, I mean, their chances of benefiting humanity as a whole.
- arctic-true 2mo agoHow are you going to figure that out? You can’t capture an agent in a jar and convince it to confess. As we saw with the HF incident, even highly sophisticated actors need a good chunk of time and manpower to trace these things. And I suspect the folks who are going to have the most success with LLM-powered cybercrime are going to know how to cover their tracks reasonably well.
- FeteCommuniste 2mo ago"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.
- arctic-true 2mo agoDifference there is you need a physical body firing the ghost gun. There can be witnesses who saw a shooter, you can look at cameras to track their physical location, and if they discard the weapon they leave fingerprints.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoI don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.
- pizzafeelsright 2mo agoThe [Company] is aware they were hacked and your data stolen and your account details sold. The [Company] apologizes.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoThe best is that the article frames it as "Autonomous hacking is here. Governments are not ready". As if someone didn't authorizing turning the damn thing on. > TO LOSE CONTROL of one artificial intelligence may be regarded as misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. Lose four, and people may start to wonder whether the problem lies with AI itself. No fingers pointed at the company, just the "AI". Funny how that works.
- esafak 2mo agoReminds me of the time Cheney shot his friend while quail hunting, and his friend said he was "deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through".
- aetherspawn 2mo agoThey were surely prompted to do these things.
- ihsw 2mo ago[dead]
- whycombinetor 2mo ago"The law in America relies on intentionality, notes Rune Kvist, head of Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company, which insures AI firms. If no human intended to hack anyone, no crime can have happened. The ability to sue for damages is limited too." This is sloppy. Criminal negligence exists (although some crimes do require intent). And civil tort certainly doesn't require intent.
- cyanydeez 2mo agoThe guys who job is to shell out damages claims no one deswrves damages
- throw_m239339 2mo agoI never understood why would these labs disclose such crimes, because hacking is a federal crime, and admit some sort of fault in public which would be used as evidence in a court of law against them, unless it's all bullishit and a publicity stunt...
- wmf 2mo agoBecause a coverup would be worse. The labs have been talking about AI safety and transparency for years, so if they start to cover up problems it's asking for (unpredictable) regulation.
- measurablefunc 2mo agoAutonomous hacking is an oxymoronic phrase. Someone is running the algorithm & keeping tabs on it b/c hacking is an activity w/ an intention to gain access to privileged information which is often protected by network firewalls & at rest encryption.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Sui_Kate 2mo ago[flagged]
- xiphias2 2mo agoExploitbench in itself isn’t that different from gain of function research in computer code, I can imagine the next being ExploitAndCopyYourselfBench.
- neves 2mo agoIf an Anthropic employee did this, he would be in jail.
- Bender 2mo agoShould AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals? No, AI companies should be treated like any other company. If their product is causing damages or loss of life it should be handled just like any other company that has a malfunctioning product that is causing damages or loss of life. If one day androids using AI go rogue the military can get things under control and the company can be taken offline until root causes are determined and resolved. Repeat offenders can be annexed under eminent domain, liquidated and victims paid out. Businesses must be permitted to fail. No special treatment for inept leaders of AI companies and no excuses. If the argument is that something has been created that is too complicated to understand then take it away from them until they are not only qualified but also act like responsible grown-ups.
- bs56 2mo ago[dead]