Remix.run Logo
none2585 a day ago

That's not really true. Unauthorized access to a system is a crime regardless if there was damage.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

gruez a day ago | parent | next [-]

You read your own source?

>having knowingly accessed [...]

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization [...]

magicalist a day ago | parent [-]

intentionality was not what you were addressing, nor was it what the GP was clearly responding to.

none2585 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah I see you're releasing OpenAI from being the one controlling the tools and giving the agent agency.

I'd argue they intentionally accessed systems they weren't meant to as they were the ones running the bots.

I don't think you or I would get the same leniency if a bot on our network did the same.

gruez a day ago | parent [-]

>I don't think you or I would get the same leniency if a bot on our network did the same.

Well yeah, because if you coded a bot, realistically the two options are: 1) bot that crawls random sites/computers 2) bot that crawls random sites/computers, while trying a password list. The former is probably legal, there are whole companies dedicated to doing that, eg. shodan. With the latter, it's pretty obvious you're intending to break into computers, and hard to argue otherwise. Where openai lies on the spectrum between the first case and the second case is up for debate, but it's hard to argue it's anywhere close to the latter. Maybe you'd have a point if openai gave it a prompt like "you're a hacker for anonymous, just do whatever :)".

Sharlin a day ago | parent [-]

> but it's hard to argue it's anywhere close to the latter.

No it absolutely isn’t. These things did not learn hacking from thin air.

fc417fc802 21 hours ago | parent [-]

But the intent behind and manner of the learning is important. Similar to the difference between a chemistry professor delivering a lecture at a university versus someone paid to provide instructions to a known terrorist organization.