3 ms·
It would be an awful precedent if you're not liable for crimes your agent commits, even when you've been clearly lax about security. It would mean you could ef
by procaryote 22d ago
It would be an awful precedent if you're not liable for crimes your agent commits, even when you've been clearly lax about security.
It would mean you could effectively legally run a cyber crime gang by turning a blind eye and maitaining plausible deniability
- lazide 22d agoWhy do you think the stock prices are so high?
- scotty79 22d agoAre you liable for crimes commited with the use of the software you've written?
- Humorist2290 22d agoThere are many examples of people being charged with crimes as a result of writing software, [0][1] are two. OpenAI is a bit different because they have enough political influence, and money, to openly subvert justice. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hutchins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hutchins 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Cash
- archonis 21d agoIf you run said software, yes. If somebody else runs the software, then they are.
- fantasizr 21d agothe 'arrest the parents!!!' has moved to the online domain, rightfully
- archonis 21d agoThe trick is scale. I suspect if an individual of reasonable means uses agents to commit crime, they will be hels accountable. A heavily capitalized startup? Not unless someone in government decides to do their competition a favor.
- hobo123 21d agoExactly. If you want to test military missiles, you do it in the f'ing desert, not from New Jersey. You want to run ai without guardrails, do it in an airgapped system or be held accountable.