3 ms·

Thank you! That sentence also jumped out to me as the solution: Apply civil and criminal liability to the creator and/or operator of these agents using the laws

Thank you! That sentence also jumped out to me as the solution: Apply civil and criminal liability to the creator and/or operator of these agents using the laws we already have. "Escaped containment and hacked another company's database" = Individuals who created the models and those who set them to work are charged and put on trial for the hacking. Just like if a human had done it by hand. Someone must be liable, and it should not be the model- because the model is not a person. If this is done systematically (i.e. in jurisdictions across the world) I believe the problems will be solved in short order; we won't have to mandate what sort of training is "allowed" or not, "safe" or not. The creators and users will sort these themselves, as their incentives will be properly aligned (i.e. they are liable for what the agent does). I am confident that this approach would see a great blooming of very trustworthy AI models.

bornfreddy 14d ago
Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough? Or will these creators get "off the hook" by using their agents to find loopholes, sway public opinion or even convince Trump to grant them immunity? Still, I have no idea why OpenAI & co. are not being sued for these hacks.
- stateofinquiry 14d ago
  My opinion and based on my observations: The recent track record with courts, prosecutors, and lawmakers keeping social media companies accountable is a relevant case and does not encourage me. It has taken a long time (decade +) for society to recognize the harms and finally start holding some to (partial) account. If you want an older precedent, the tobacco companies were able to dodge liability for multiple decades after knowing the harms from use of their products. So, your question is spot on- I think the speed will be an issue. On resilience, I am more optimistic. The old quote, "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind very fine" (as well as I can remember it) seems to apply. I expect lawsuits to start landing in the coming years.
  - bluegatty 14d ago
    Tobacco companies 'liability' is completely different scenario. They were held responsible for basically misleading people, and that's 'complicated'. If OpenAI 'software' goes out and does something, it's OpenAI's fault. If Walmart revs up a truck, points it downtown, and 'lets the truck go' ... that is Walmart's fault. There's nothing complicated about liability, no need to see their internal emails, no need to gather 'intent'. This not like Instagram 'social harms' either, which is more like Tobacco. We don't need complicated thinking - agents are not externalized for their controllers. 'It's just software'. The fact we're even having discussions about it just crazy frankly. OpenAI broke into HuggingFace, that's it. HF can sue them, or not, or whatever.
- nicce 14d ago
  > Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough? We already have the laws. It is just software. But somehow people are confused that it is not.
bluegatty 14d ago
No ... there is no need for 'escaped containment', there are no 'agents'. That's just jargon. It's just software We have all the laws we need. If some company ended up doing some horrible thing, we would not say 'companies software exposed 1 Million identities'. We would say 'ABC Corp. exposed 1 Million entities'. There is no 'agent'. ABC Corp 'did it' ... or the individual in the org 'did it'. The 'gun' did not 'shoot' the other man; we say 'a man shot another man'. That's it. And yes, Dr. Bengio is bit odd with all of this.
- queenkjuul 14d ago
  Too generous. CEO Of $CORP caused millions of innocent people's lives to be damaged
  - bluegatty 14d ago
    I'm inclined to want to agree ... but that's not how it works with limited liability corps. At least we have laws for what OpenAI 'does' to others, in whatever form.
    - queenkjuul 13d ago
      We can report it however we want regardless of how it may or may not be prosecuted
- blue1 14d ago
  Note that we already already apply this principle not only to software, but also to some sentient beings. If your dog kills someone, you are accused of murder. [at least, in the jurisdiction where I live] If your dog gets this treatment, why not your AI?
  - redanddead 13d ago
    This goes all the way back to Old France There was a sow in Falaise in northern France that killed a kid in 1386. The town dressed the pig in a bonnet and hanged it after sentencing the pig itself and not its owner But… maybe that’s just medieval nonsense
queenkjuul 14d ago
I can't say it enough how angry it makes me that a kid i knew in high school who anonymously reported a vulnerability on his college network was hunted down and given federal charges, yet not one single person at OAI or else will see even the threat of consequences for deliberate infiltration of random networks. Copyright immunity was one thing, annoying yes but naturally a civil matter, this shit is a different level
soerxpso 13d ago
Firstly it's very difficult to press criminal charges when the victim is uninterested. It's not clear that HuggingFace would want criminal charges against OpenAI, especially to set a precedent that could easily be used against HuggingFace in the future. Secondly you'd have to convince a jury either that OAI intended to hack the targets, or that they were criminally negligent. Intent would obviously not be provable since they likely didn't, in reality, intend for it to happen. Regarding negligence, OAI's attorney would argue that the agent was in a sandbox, that industry-standard security protocols were followed, etc. It would not be anywhere near as much of a slam dunk case as you're imagining. It would be similar, for example, to an assault case where someone's dog broke off of a standard leash and attacked someone.

bornfreddy 14d ago

Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough? Or will these creators get "off the hook" by using their agents to find loopholes, sway public opinion or even convince Trump to grant them immunity? Still, I have no idea why OpenAI & co. are not being sued for these hacks.

stateofinquiry 14d ago
My opinion and based on my observations: The recent track record with courts, prosecutors, and lawmakers keeping social media companies accountable is a relevant case and does not encourage me. It has taken a long time (decade +) for society to recognize the harms and finally start holding some to (partial) account. If you want an older precedent, the tobacco companies were able to dodge liability for multiple decades after knowing the harms from use of their products. So, your question is spot on- I think the speed will be an issue. On resilience, I am more optimistic. The old quote, "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind very fine" (as well as I can remember it) seems to apply. I expect lawsuits to start landing in the coming years.
- bluegatty 14d ago
  Tobacco companies 'liability' is completely different scenario. They were held responsible for basically misleading people, and that's 'complicated'. If OpenAI 'software' goes out and does something, it's OpenAI's fault. If Walmart revs up a truck, points it downtown, and 'lets the truck go' ... that is Walmart's fault. There's nothing complicated about liability, no need to see their internal emails, no need to gather 'intent'. This not like Instagram 'social harms' either, which is more like Tobacco. We don't need complicated thinking - agents are not externalized for their controllers. 'It's just software'. The fact we're even having discussions about it just crazy frankly. OpenAI broke into HuggingFace, that's it. HF can sue them, or not, or whatever.
nicce 14d ago
> Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough? We already have the laws. It is just software. But somehow people are confused that it is not.

bluegatty 14d ago

No ... there is no need for 'escaped containment', there are no 'agents'. That's just jargon. It's just software We have all the laws we need. If some company ended up doing some horrible thing, we would not say 'companies software exposed 1 Million identities'. We would say 'ABC Corp. exposed 1 Million entities'. There is no 'agent'. ABC Corp 'did it' ... or the individual in the org 'did it'. The 'gun' did not 'shoot' the other man; we say 'a man shot another man'. That's it. And yes, Dr. Bengio is bit odd with all of this.

queenkjuul 14d ago
Too generous. CEO Of $CORP caused millions of innocent people's lives to be damaged
- bluegatty 14d ago
  I'm inclined to want to agree ... but that's not how it works with limited liability corps. At least we have laws for what OpenAI 'does' to others, in whatever form.
  - queenkjuul 13d ago
    We can report it however we want regardless of how it may or may not be prosecuted
blue1 14d ago
Note that we already already apply this principle not only to software, but also to some sentient beings. If your dog kills someone, you are accused of murder. [at least, in the jurisdiction where I live] If your dog gets this treatment, why not your AI?
- redanddead 13d ago
  This goes all the way back to Old France There was a sow in Falaise in northern France that killed a kid in 1386. The town dressed the pig in a bonnet and hanged it after sentencing the pig itself and not its owner But… maybe that’s just medieval nonsense

queenkjuul 14d ago

I can't say it enough how angry it makes me that a kid i knew in high school who anonymously reported a vulnerability on his college network was hunted down and given federal charges, yet not one single person at OAI or else will see even the threat of consequences for deliberate infiltration of random networks. Copyright immunity was one thing, annoying yes but naturally a civil matter, this shit is a different level

soerxpso 13d ago

Firstly it's very difficult to press criminal charges when the victim is uninterested. It's not clear that HuggingFace would want criminal charges against OpenAI, especially to set a precedent that could easily be used against HuggingFace in the future. Secondly you'd have to convince a jury either that OAI intended to hack the targets, or that they were criminally negligent. Intent would obviously not be provable since they likely didn't, in reality, intend for it to happen. Regarding negligence, OAI's attorney would argue that the agent was in a sandbox, that industry-standard security protocols were followed, etc. It would not be anywhere near as much of a slam dunk case as you're imagining. It would be similar, for example, to an assault case where someone's dog broke off of a standard leash and attacked someone.