I think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)

Lawyer here: This part does not require a new law.

Even though agents are not agents in the principal/agent legal sense (because agents have to be human), for the purposes of criminality, it does not matter.

Agents do not act autonomously (and every court to ever consider it has agreed), and therefore they would simply be considered an instrumentality of the crime.

So that part does not need a new law.

The real blocker is often that a lot of the crimes you could charge here require specific intent. Because the agent is just an instrumentality, it does not have separate intent (and can't be part of a conspiracy), so it's the intent of hte person using the agent that would matter. Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime.

There are not a lot of non-intent crimes in this area, and this is on purpose. Otherwise you could get charged with a crime for say, running nmap and having it accidentally shutdown something important or killed a person or whatever because someone hooked it up to a TCP port.

>WHY has no one been charged???

I doubt huggingface wants charges filed.

No law needed, that's the way it already is.

Because nobody did it on purpose?

then usa will become like europe that cant innovate out of regulations bag. saftety is meaningless if you have no food eat.

Can they try to prove that he directed someone to direct the agent to do that?

I remember (sorry can't give a proper quote) a biologist interviews about the fear of lab grown "super" seeds escaping the lab. They chuckled basically saying that nature is a very VERY challenging place. There are plenty of ecological niches but they are well guarded by incumbents.

Sure some new hacks will take place, including on poorly guarded infrastructure and yes it will have some very unfortunate consequences... but also infrastructure is precisely designed to be resilient. There is quite a bit of failsafe, redundancy, etc built in which is precisely why those projects are typically slow and expensive, unlike a random website for a restaurant.

TL;DR: nope, some isolated incidents will happen but without chain reactions.

OpenAI and Anthropic vs Brawndo Corporation. The final showdown.

Who says they aren’t?

Set yourself an alarm for 5 years from now to review. Investigations take time. Often by the time charges are made everybody has forgotten about the incident. It only takes a few times where things go away without charges to leave an incorrect impression that nothing ever happens.

It’s actually Iowa leading a coalition of 15 other states making demands. It’s not a prosecution yet, but they demand the preservation of evidence. They’ve promised to protect whistleblowers. They are saying there may be criminal or civil liability involved. They gave them a cease and desist on similar testing until they can show they can do it safely.

The Iowa-led coalition is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

The letter’s last paragraph reads:

    OpenAI has an obligation to act responsibly and to follow State and
    federal laws that protect Americans’ safety and security. When OpenAI takes
   actions that imperil the welfare of our citizens, State Attorneys General will
    step in to protect them. We intend to take all steps necessary to protect our
    States and all Americans from the unprecedented risks posed by OpenAI’s
    irresponsible products and conduct.

They are opening that. This is the first step: figure out what crimes were committed by who. As I said a couple weeks ago when this broke, it looks like a crime was committed and I hope someone is charged. However we can't just charge everybody who works for openAI with the crime of speeding (even though it is probably true) - that is both the wrong crime, and also is highly unlikely everybody at openAI was involved.

I’m not a lawyer. However it probably comes down to jurisdiction.

Brenna Bird cares more about publicity than action.

I don't mind if they point it inwards.

The job of lawyers is to enforce the existing laws. (well they are a part of the enforcement, there are lots of other parts)