| ▲ | tokioyoyo 5 hours ago |
| What? Both sides are cool with it, why would anyone be arrested and etc.? |
|
| ▲ | HumblyTossed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because if a human, say a Aaron Swartz type, were to have done it, they'd destroy him. |
|
| ▲ | michaelt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Many legal traditions don’t require a victim. It’s the state that prosecutes, not the victim. As a practical matter it would be difficult to prosecute an assault where the victim opposed the prosecution, so most states wouldn’t bother - but for things like speeding and dealing drugs the law has been broken despite the lack of a victim. |
|
| ▲ | ethin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because a crime was committed, and a pretty serious one at that? If I blow up your house or steel $100000 from you and we both resolve our differences out of band, should I just be allowed to go about my day like I never did anything, or should I be punished for the crimes I committed? If I am not punished, it makes a mockery of the law that is (supposed) to have protected you, and if it happens repeatedly people will start wondering why the law even should exist if it clearly and obviously doesn't work. Granted, this has yet to happen again, but if OAI isn't punished it sets a very bad baseline precedent: that if I just hack you with an AI model, it's a-okay, and you can't do anything about it because eh, it's all good man! |
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If I steal $100000 from you, and you decide you value your relationship with me more than you value that $100000? Yep, you can just decide to let me have it and let it slide. Believe it or not, deciding that you weren't wronged and not suing isn't a crime. It happens all the time. What people do with each other is up to them. Did Bob allow his friend Jack to borrow his truck? No. Does Bob want to sue Jack for taking his truck anyway, and driving it into a ditch? No. Does Jack owe Bob big time for the mess he caused? Yes, but not in any formal legally binding way. This works for corporations too. When two corporations find themselves at odds, threat of legal action is often used by one company against another as a leverage to resolve things behind closed doors instead. In a more amicable fashion - with no legal expenses of a protracted court battle and no loss of reputation on either side. | | |
| ▲ | Alpha3031 an hour ago | parent [-] | | A lawsuit is not the same as a criminal prosecution. One is supposed to remedy damages, the other is supposed to be because it is in the public interest that people follow laws and we don't devolve into anarchy (or more dangerously, some might-makes-right society where it is more beneficial to appease the powerful than it is to pursue what is just). It is possible for a prosecutor to decide it is not in the public interest to persue a prosecution (or that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a criminal action beyond reasonable doubt), and certainly the victim's opinion could be considered, but ultimately whether criminal charges should be pursued is and ought to be based on a different test to civil matters, one focused on the public interest rather than mere restoration. |
| |
| ▲ | Peacefulz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree with your stance mostly. I get the sentiment, but both of your examples seem civil to me. Both of those situations can and ideally should be resolved out of the courts, and neither carry social weight. If one entity is injured by another, and subsequently made whole, however the two parties define that, then it is none of my business. |
|
|
| ▲ | Analemma_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because incentives are aligned properly if agents aren't liability-proof for crimes- making someone go to jail for instances like this is how to get the labs to behave themselves, whereas going "ha ha what an oopsie-woopsie" will make the next instance worse. Note that for criminal cases (which this was), the justice system can choose to prosecute even if the victim doesn't want that. It often doesn't, but this is one case where it should. There’s also an optics issue for the justice system at play here: there’s immense public distrust of and anger at the labs right now. I would go to jail if I hacked HuggingFace, even if I said “it was during an eval!”; not doing the same for the labs makes it look like they’re above the law, which is going to make this anger get worse. |
| |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually there's another reason too: because it discourages marketing stunts. Personally I don't think that's what this was, but for the people who do think it was a marketing stunt: you guys should be pushing extra hard for prosecution here. If people can go to jail for AI-alarmism-as-marketing, that makes it a lot less likely to happen again. At the very least, the investigation and discovery process during the prosecution would show us the documents about whether it was a stunt or not, instead of taking OAI's word for it. |
|
