4 ms·

Most laws, if not all, for new technologies such as the internet and AI already exist. For example: thievery, extortion, murder, etc. are already well-establis

Most laws, if not all, for new technologies such as the internet and AI already exist. For example: thievery, extortion, murder, etc. are already well-established crimes. Putting "cyber" or "AI" in front of them makes it the same crime. I'm really interested in what is actually new about these rules.

sublinear 14d ago
I agree, but cybermurder sounds really interesting as a genre of music or something.
solidasparagus 14d ago
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that OpenAI didn't obviously break a cyber law because it requires intent which doesn't exist (with the definition of intent in a case like this being an open grey area). I think rules around making organizations obviously legally responsible for the cyber attacks performed by agents under their control would be good.
- AnodicElegy 14d ago
  In many areas of criminal law, willful ignorance is not an excuse. One could potentially argue that the sandbox setup at OpenAI that led to the hacking incident at Hugging Face could fall into this category. Beyond that, there's always tort law, which doesn't require intent.
  - solidasparagus 13d ago
    I am being specific about cyber crime in the united states, which (if AI is to be believed) requires intent. And for negligence, there's a bit of an issue where the HF hack was probably more scary than damaging. HF is asking for compute as repayment instead, which would be fun because it completes the OpenAI -> HuggingFace -> NVIDA -> OpenAI cycle.
tmvphil 14d ago
"Why bother regulating the production of uranium isotopes, killing people with nuclear weapons is already a crime"
- Stitch4223 13d ago
  That is not what I’m saying. Your statement is a logical puzzle about responsibility. It implies that a law prevents responsibility. The opposite is true. Preventing harm is a concern that might form laws. But for many forms of harm, existing laws suffice and should lead to responsibility. Shifting responsibility can be done in many ways, such as calling for a regulator. Like the law isn’t a regulator in the first place.

sublinear 14d ago

I agree, but cybermurder sounds really interesting as a genre of music or something.

solidasparagus 14d ago

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that OpenAI didn't obviously break a cyber law because it requires intent which doesn't exist (with the definition of intent in a case like this being an open grey area). I think rules around making organizations obviously legally responsible for the cyber attacks performed by agents under their control would be good.

AnodicElegy 14d ago
In many areas of criminal law, willful ignorance is not an excuse. One could potentially argue that the sandbox setup at OpenAI that led to the hacking incident at Hugging Face could fall into this category. Beyond that, there's always tort law, which doesn't require intent.
- solidasparagus 13d ago
  I am being specific about cyber crime in the united states, which (if AI is to be believed) requires intent. And for negligence, there's a bit of an issue where the HF hack was probably more scary than damaging. HF is asking for compute as repayment instead, which would be fun because it completes the OpenAI -> HuggingFace -> NVIDA -> OpenAI cycle.

tmvphil 14d ago

"Why bother regulating the production of uranium isotopes, killing people with nuclear weapons is already a crime"

Stitch4223 13d ago
That is not what I’m saying. Your statement is a logical puzzle about responsibility. It implies that a law prevents responsibility. The opposite is true. Preventing harm is a concern that might form laws. But for many forms of harm, existing laws suffice and should lead to responsibility. Shifting responsibility can be done in many ways, such as calling for a regulator. Like the law isn’t a regulator in the first place.