On some level though we have to be cognizant of the potential for harm these models have.

LLMs are still a little loosey goosey, and we are right on the cusp (if not there already) for an agent to hack a bank and steal money for some rando teenager with a penchant for jail breaking.

The regulations are and will be negative, but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

▲

yunwal 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> On some level

The appropriate level would be regulation though? Like I just don't get how we can argue that arbitrarily throttling companies is ok.

▲

WarmWash 3 hours ago | parent [-]

OpenAI fired the starting gun 3.5 years ago before anyone in the industry had a sound safety plan, and not much progress has been made since.

So here we are, it's probably going to me messy and err on the side of over-bearing.

▲

yunwal 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm fine with erring on the side of overbearing, as long as it's not blatant cronyism

▲

mrngld 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Too overbearing though and you get... Mistral? A continent that hasn't been on the leading edge of anything (other that expansion of the regulatory state) for decades, and Europe feels it in their employment numbers.

Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment would count as a disastrous recession in the US. In the US we call 2007-09 the "Great Recession", which peaked at 10.0%, and that relatively brief time left a generational mark. That's a somewhat routine number by EU standards.

Not to mention you end up with bizarre effects. If the UK were admitted as the 51st state it'd immediately be the poorest. (Yes, some EU countries are wealthy, but they're also the size of US counties, if we cherry pick just Manhattan we could make some spectacular comparisons too)

So, it's a complex issue but the tradeoffs are absolutely tangible yet often dismissed.

	▲	5upplied_demand 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Current French (8.2%), Spanish (10.3%) or even Swedish (8.6%) unemployment This obviously doesn't tell the whole story, because it only measures people actively in the workforce. Meanwhile, a far larger portion of Sweden's population is actually employed compared to the US. Sweden's laborforce participation rate is 76% and in the US it is 62%. Sweden's employment rate is 69% and US's is 59%. Which statistics are more important? Edit: had wrong employment rate

▲

matt123456789 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bank should be more secure, if a random person with an LLM can hack them, they should have paid 100 random blue teamers with LLMs to hack them first to get more secure. Not AI's fault.

	▲	itintheory an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> blue teamers Pretty sure you mean red team here. While I've heard people refer to any offensive security (eg including blackhat) as 'red team' , it typically means people you've hired or contracted to try to break into your systems, whereas the blue team are people you've hired to build and operate your security defenses. Red and blue team are both your employees / contractors but perform different functions.
	▲	SpicyLemonZest an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The purpose of policies like this is precisely to ensure that those 100 runs do happen first, rather than allowing a free-for-all where they have to race to secure their systems.

▲

jazzyjackson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Robbing banks is already illegal

▲

bee_rider 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But we’re entering a somewhat weird situation where a careless/dumb person might actually rob a bank by legitimate accident.

	▲	derwiki 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s why I’m selling OpenClaw insurance! /s

▲

Barrin92 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply?

If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.

▲

jstanley 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is overly reductive.

If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Why is an LLM different? What happened to mens rea?

	▲	autoexec 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A web browser can't decide to hack a bank anymore than a LLM can. Neither have any understanding of what a bank is or any will to act on their own. The person who instructs/uses a web browser to hack a bank (even if it's someone else's browser) commits the crime.
	▲	girvo 26 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Depends, as usual. Intent can matter, but depends on the statute (and jurisdiction) in question.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]