3 ms·

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Open

by qarl 1mo ago

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

pdonis 1mo ago
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run. Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?
- fragmede 1mo ago
  The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".
- qarl 1mo ago
  Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability. It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."
  - pdonis 1mo ago
    If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.
    - qarl 1mo ago
      Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.
    - qarl 1mo ago
      To touch base - I believe OpenAI has agreed to settle with them for $100M. Or a partnership worth $100M. Or something so that Hugging Face won't go after them.
- ascorbic 1mo ago
  If any of the orgs that were hacked decided to sue OpenAI they'd probably have a good chance of winning. It's just that none of them has.
cschep 1mo ago
This is WILDLY optimistic
- qarl 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mcphage 1mo ago
    Oh, you can, no problem. But you’re also wrong, and getting downvoted because of it.
    - qarl 1mo ago
      I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged? No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.
      - BHSPitMonkey 1mo ago
        A few excerpts from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html worth a careful re-read: > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
        qarl 1mo ago
        Why are you replying on this comment? As near as I can tell, I was in fact right. I just didn't follow the laws of HN communication to express it, on a thread where the person I replied to didn't follow it either. It would have been more appropriate to pile on with the others above.
  - wavemode 1mo ago
angoragoats 1mo ago
One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility/culpability for (possibly nefarious) actions in the eyes of the public. The average person has no idea how LLMs actually work and think it’s plausible that an “agent” could go rogue without any human instruction. Terms like agent, thinking, reasoning, etc reinforce the misconception that the LLM has a mind of its own.
- qarl 1mo ago
  > One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility No it isn't.
  - angoragoats 1mo ago
    Yes, it is, for the reasons I stated in my comment, and you only need look at any OAI/Anthropic press release to see evidence of this in the language they use. The LLM now reasons better! Set the thinking level! It learns! All of these phrases are designed to give the impression that the LLM is an autonomous entity, when it is no such thing.
    - qarl 1mo ago
      "Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.
      - angoragoats 1mo ago
        I am not arguing that any of these terms are novel, so this doesn’t address my argument. Even if I agree that LLM makers are using these terms in the way they were originally defined (which I don’t), my point is that they’re specifically being used to help falsely attribute agency to the algorithm when there is none, and especially to convince members of the general public who aren’t familiar with computer science papers from 70 years ago.
        qarl 1mo ago

by qarl 1mo ago

pdonis 1mo ago

> I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run. Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?

fragmede 1mo ago
The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".
qarl 1mo ago
Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability. It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."
- pdonis 1mo ago
  If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.
  - qarl 1mo ago
    Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.
  - qarl 1mo ago
    To touch base - I believe OpenAI has agreed to settle with them for $100M. Or a partnership worth $100M. Or something so that Hugging Face won't go after them.
ascorbic 1mo ago
If any of the orgs that were hacked decided to sue OpenAI they'd probably have a good chance of winning. It's just that none of them has.

cschep 1mo ago

This is WILDLY optimistic

qarl 1mo ago
[flagged]
- mcphage 1mo ago
  Oh, you can, no problem. But you’re also wrong, and getting downvoted because of it.
  - qarl 1mo ago
    I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged? No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.
    - BHSPitMonkey 1mo ago
      A few excerpts from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html worth a careful re-read: > In Comments > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
      - qarl 1mo ago
        Why are you replying on this comment? As near as I can tell, I was in fact right. I just didn't follow the laws of HN communication to express it, on a thread where the person I replied to didn't follow it either. It would have been more appropriate to pile on with the others above.
- wavemode 1mo ago

angoragoats 1mo ago

One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility/culpability for (possibly nefarious) actions in the eyes of the public. The average person has no idea how LLMs actually work and think it’s plausible that an “agent” could go rogue without any human instruction. Terms like agent, thinking, reasoning, etc reinforce the misconception that the LLM has a mind of its own.

qarl 1mo ago
> One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility No it isn't.
- angoragoats 1mo ago
  Yes, it is, for the reasons I stated in my comment, and you only need look at any OAI/Anthropic press release to see evidence of this in the language they use. The LLM now reasons better! Set the thinking level! It learns! All of these phrases are designed to give the impression that the LLM is an autonomous entity, when it is no such thing.
  - qarl 1mo ago
    "Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.
    - angoragoats 1mo ago
      I am not arguing that any of these terms are novel, so this doesn’t address my argument. Even if I agree that LLM makers are using these terms in the way they were originally defined (which I don’t), my point is that they’re specifically being used to help falsely attribute agency to the algorithm when there is none, and especially to convince members of the general public who aren’t familiar with computer science papers from 70 years ago.
      - qarl 1mo ago