i dont think any of these cases meet the bar of gross negligence, which is a pretty high bar. it requires proving a "conscious and reckless disregard".

which, again, sandboxes and guardrails and such would make a gross negligence argument unconvincing.

▲

Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think that if Hugging Face had filed a police report that OpenAI could have been charged with a crime.

I’m partially surprised that they didn’t do exactly that. If I ran a corporation I would assume any intrusion attempt by another company was intentional. Why wouldn’t I? Corporate espionage is super common.

I assume the answer is that these executives know each other personally.

▲

sebzim4500 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What possible upside exists for Hugging Face to go after one of their most important partners in that way?

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

charged is possible, however i doubt there would be a conviction for the reasons i stated (no intent).

	▲	Grombobulous 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think it’s most likely you’re right, but I’m the weirdo who thinks there’s actually a non-zero probability that there was negative intent and that the “accidental” aspect is a form of damage control. If someone broke into my house but then claimed they didn’t mean to when they saw I was home, I’m not sure I’d take them at their word.

▲

lokar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

it's not about the the number of escapes, it's about whether reasonable and conscious effort is being expended to prevent the escapes.

there could be 1,000 escapes, where each one was enabled by novel and unexpected chain of 0-day exploits. not likely to be considered reckless disregard in court.

there could be 1 escape, where there was no sandbox, no guardrails, no instructions to avoid damage, etc. which would likely to be considered reckless disregard (well, more likely to be, but still, reckless disregard is a high bar).

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you sure? At some point a reasonable person would conclude that this activity can’t be conducted safely.

	▲	john_strinlai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		what i am getting at is that it is impossible to answer the question "How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?" reckless disregard is a specific legal term, with specific criteria, and none of the criteria cares about "number of attempts" (or number of escapes, etc.).

▲

fwip 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely after 999 escapes, a reasonable person could conclude that the sandbox is not a sufficient precaution?

	▲	john_strinlai 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it’s not a perfect hypothetical, but it illustrates the point that the number of escapes is not the deciding factor of what constitutes reckless disregard.