>that it’s very simple to just air gap a system

No, not really, and with LLMs an air gapped system may not tell you anything useful.

Now, yes, the first part of testing you want an air gapped system to tell you if the system is going to stupidly do bad things. But an gapped system tells you nothing about the systems capabilities to do smart bad things. There's already a number of papers out there on LLMs detecting they were in evaluation mode and changing their behaviors.

It is unfortunate that we have so little information on the incident because we actually need to understand the early stages of the task and how it developed into the later dangerous stages of attack. For example, would any of this have occurred if the agent didn't find the system to use as a message board? If that would have prevented it, then we actually have a blind spot on what the model can do once out in the wild, or if it got into the wild.

Testing agentic systems is much much more difficult than testing software. Your software just doesn't suddenly develop the will or desire to escape confinement. Generally you're worried about human actors, internal or external, causing the problems not a digital agent breaking out. The agentic systems need access to tools to work. Now your air gapped network is starting to get huge, but it's still very obvious that it's an isolated network.

So yea, testing and containing a system that way better at hacking than you are is difficult if you want valid answers.

I think there is ample evidence for charges to be filed so that the People can see for certain whether or not it was done on purpose as a publicity stunt, as I believe is the case.

To be fair, it was positioned as "have a fun chat," not "truth telling genius oracle that makes no mistakes."

They can break their own things, not other people's things.

justice for who exactly?

Criminal acts do not require the victim to "press charges." A government prosecuting attorney decides whether to criminally prosecute the alleged perpetrator.

"Pressing charges" is mostly a made up idea for criminal cases. However, prosecuting attorneys may not want to pick up a case if the victim is not cooperating, because it makes the case much harder to win.

I like how AI safety expert Robert Miles put it. [0]

So much effort was spend on philosophizing whether a safe enough sandbox would exist. But that was obviously irrelevant as in hindsight it should have been obvious we were never going to use one.

[0] https://youtube.com/shorts/XnnjvIqf4fU?si=MxuPlR3hjxAgjx5_

It's not that "AI" is too powerful because bad prosecutors use fucking ChatGPT to write their briefs. It's that there's too much investment wrapped up in the technology for it to be challenged. Same reason Flock won't be held accountable for mass stalking, or we never hold our commanders-in-chief responsible for war crimes. If you're sufficiently powerful then the law is a battlefield between you and other powerful entities to slug it out, not a set of binding principles that apply as written. There are no meaningful powers that want OpenAI punished, so it won't happen. The law and Constitution will be reinterpreted to make it so.

The point was never "justice" - it was always "punish OpenAI because I don't like OpenAI". With HuggingFace just being the newest excuse for why exactly OpenAI should be punished.

I don't even like OpenAI, but HuggingFace is free to sue or not sue OpenAI for the breach - and also to wring whatever concessions they can out of OpenAI behind closed doors in exchange for not suing them. And if the mere possibility of legal action was enough for the parties to resolve their conflict amicably? Then the law has served its purpose.

It's the lack of personhood rather than inability to produce copyrightable material. However, the companies controlling the AI systems have legal personhood and should absolutely be charged for criminality that transpires under their watch or at their behest.

Guns also can't hold copyright; can they be charged with crime? (hint: it's the operator who gets charged).

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

Is has nothing to do with copyright.

I understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here.

An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant.

So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.

your perspective on today’s America is there is _too much_ accountability for big companies?

> Americans always frothing at the mouth to invoke the justice system and jail someone

Your phrasing makes it seem like that's a bad thing. Americans are bombarded by a firehose of headlines about Big XYZ doing all kinds of blatantly illegal or harmful things, but never get any sort of meaningful resolution before the next terrible thing takes it's place in the news cycle. I'll admit, there are a few people that I am personally wishing a modicum of health so that they live long enough to get some sort of public shame and justice - if only to show the rest of us that it's not a completely rigged system.

Why?

Worried about what? Someone there thinks VLAN isolation is "air gapped"?