| |
| ▲ | throwatdem12311 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Some of them should be in jail. | |
| ▲ | girvo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t understand how it’s not illegal | | |
| ▲ | martinald a day ago | parent [-] | | From my understanding and IANAL there are two main problems. 1) most law requires intent, especially criminal. OpenAI certainly didn't "intend" to hack these companies given they did sandbox them etc. 2) Given the agent hacked them, not a human, a lot of law requires a person/employee to have done it to hold the company liable if it was part of their work duties. I think the only real potential ground is negligence (in not sandboxing them correctly and being reckless with running these tests at all), but this requires not taking reasonable precautions. They could argue that they _did_ but it was so novel the precautions failed. But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case. Interestingly this was solved with new laws for self driving cars, most of which assign the company that is operating the car as the "person" involved explicitly. | | |
| ▲ | mjmjmjmj a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Your honor, it wasn't me who robbed the bank and shot the security guards, it was the gun! then the clerks start handing me money, what am i to do? not take it? i was just trying to get back safely to my home... I do not believe we have reached the point where society and the legal frameworks recognize a software program as a legal person. There is no "agent done it". The only reason someone can even bring up such an argument with a straight face is to absolve themselves (yes, you) of any responsibility for their own behavior. That's me being generous and not assuming straight up that you are either a troll, a bot, or intentionally a malicious criminal. | |
| ▲ | uda 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am not a lawyer either, which is maybe why I am not convinced by your reasoning. Intent - you (the person operating the agents) provided instructions and used specific models and agent parameters, that is the intent, just like writing C code and compiling intends to generate assembly code. Sandboxing - that strengthens the intent claim, you knew it is dangerous, did you verify the sandbox is good enough for the intended purposes? Did you first run tests to try and circumvent the sandbox before letting the agents run free in the sandbox? The fact you put a string and call it a fence doesn't mean you have a fence. We don't really need new laws, most of the cases are simpler with more educated judges and lawyers that don't fall for the AI companies' sales rhetoric. Most of the new laws actually take away the responsibility from the actual perpetrators and on to people who have no chance of controlling the tech. And to say that that is not intended will be naive, very so. | |
| ▲ | girvo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case. That’s the point though. This has happened multiple times, and it’s their algorithm that they are choosing to run. | |
| ▲ | cyh555 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it is tracked down to that it originated from a particular computer with a particular ip address, the owner of the computer and the ip address has to be held responsible, it's the same for the human that tries to hack |
|
| |
| ▲ | dgellow a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The company shouldn’t be allowed to operate the way the do | |
| ▲ | woggy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, this is OpenAI hacking other entities ... clearly this is on OpenAI | |
| ▲ | angoragoats a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Jail time for executives and nothing less. |
|
