Yoshua Bengio is a brilliant researcher who contributed enormously to earlier development of artificial intelligence. But with this sentence,

> They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them

He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technical solutions where a political, social and legal solution would be much more effective.

Thank you! That sentence also jumped out to me as the solution: Apply civil and criminal liability to the creator and/or operator of these agents using the laws we already have. "Escaped containment and hacked another company's database" = Individuals who created the models and those who set them to work are charged and put on trial for the hacking. Just like if a human had done it by hand. Someone must be liable, and it should not be the model- because the model is not a person.

If this is done systematically (i.e. in jurisdictions across the world) I believe the problems will be solved in short order; we won't have to mandate what sort of training is "allowed" or not, "safe" or not. The creators and users will sort these themselves, as their incentives will be properly aligned (i.e. they are liable for what the agent does). I am confident that this approach would see a great blooming of very trustworthy AI models.

That is a simplistic view of the world. “Surely this complex technical challenge will disappear if we simply regulate the industry!”

You are correct that these organizations should be held accountable in proportion to what occurred. In complete agreement here. But let’s say that’s done. There’s still an enormously complex and interesting technical challenge left over. Let’s collectively talk about that part.

Not a lawyer, but I’m reasonably sure things like the HF incident _are_ considered a crime? It’s just that no one pressed charges yet?

Political, social, and legal options focus on a different problem, he calls that out a paragraph or two later.

> Risk management is not just about cybersecurity, corporate responsibility or regulation, although those matter too.

What you're getting at is more about who to hold accountable and how to do it. While that may be important, its only an after the action response and won't stop future hacks or similar from happening.

The issue is what happens if/when the models grow capable enough that the providers can't stop them even if they want to. You could have strict penalties but that's not going to solve an open research question.

"OpenAI hacked HuggingFace"

that's the headline. When you connect to random number generator to the "Do Things" button you are the one who is responsible. IF you don't like that responsibility then don't connect the generator to the button.

The Corporation examines and criticizes corporate business practices. The film's assessment is demonstrated using the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV. Robert D. Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and FBI consultant, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath. The Corporation attempts to compare the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave with what it claims are the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, e.g., the callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, the reckless disregard for the safety of others, the deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)

[dead]