Remix.run Logo
thesumofall 9 hours ago

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?

Towaway69 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Who got hacked? Hugging faces

Who now owns HF? Nvidia

Who supplies hardware to OpenAI? Nvidia

Who is now not pressing charges? …

This incident is a long way under the carpet.

dwaltrip 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can’t a prosecutor charge them regardless?

tesnorindian 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In Indian legal syatem a case can be filed suo moto by the judges or agencies. You don't require the affected party to sue. Not sure how it works in the US.

Towaway69 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

NAL but I assume that if both sides aren’t interested in a prosecution, it’s an uphill battle for a prosecutor.

pants2 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Typically yes but given that OpenAI has published enormous official blog posts breaking down their crime, I would think the prosecutor's job is pretty easy.

Towaway69 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s then up to a judge to decide whether thats evidence and whether it’s incriminating.

I assume OAI published those details after checking with their legal department. So there’s a good chance that there isn’t a chance for prosecution.

Plus they probably published that after knowing that the nvidia/HF deal was happening.

So instead this “security incident” should have been spun as OAI is honestly admitting its faults and AI is dangerous and therefore open weight models (hosted ironically by HF) should be banned. That spin didn’t really happen …

lotyrin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Legally, Practically or Politically?

bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not 'under the carpet'.

HF doesn't want to lay charges against OpenAI and it's totally reasonable.

Now - they absolutely should have that right, and I think they do.

The issues are

1) OAI it seems was not trying to cause them harm, there wasn't a ton of harm, they are both groups trying to advance AI. One experimenter's lab screwed up next to the other. It's not evil, just irresponsible.

2) HF was fine with the publicity. HF got at least $50M in free attention out of that. It put them on the front pages of news around the world. It put them at the 'centre of the AI drama' and cemented their role among the 'Tech Elite Brands'.

And probably some other things.

This is one Desperate Housewife or Jersey Shore character 'spilling a drink' on the other. It's probably not intentional, and the ensuing drama is good for both of them.

Towaway69 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think what you say is right but it’s also a further example of the zero responsibility of silicon valley tech.

For the last 20 odd years this excuse-o-rama that covers anything from data leaks to broken software to dystopian social media has been the wind in the sails of big tech.

“It’s software therefore we’re not responsible” attitude is wearing thin on many innocent bystanders and I think thats also a justified stance.

And it’s not like they didn’t know this could happen, Nick Bostrom talked about exactly these containment failures in his “Superintelligence” book of 2014. So to throw up their hands and say “oh we can’t have known of the dangers” is also sadly untrue.

cyh555 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cool, now about Rubygems...

glub 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if you take out the LLMs out of the equation, it's at the very least a negligence. Model didn't escape a sandbox, as there was no sandbox.

IanCal 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps I’m not being as strict with the word sandbox but they were sandboxed right? They did not have generic internet access they exploited other software to make external requests.

glub 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You're right. It's my opinion that if your sandbox has a path to the internet, it is not a sandbox, it's a gimmick.

And the 2 other incidents with OAI/ANT had the same issue, but it's even funnier - sandbox in those cases had a direct access to internet because someone forgot to configure it right.

I've seen very early models do similar things on my machine when they hit some unexpected blocker when trying to access a path. I remember early sonnet opening a file in browser because OS sandbox prevented from accessing it directly.

I've also had models discover a syslog-ng server (that I for some reason had ssh key inside), to get into my unraid server because machine they were running on didn't have direct network connection to Unraid server.

It can't be just me who is aware LLMs have been doing such things for the better part of last 2 years. I probably have better sandboxing on my machines now than trillion dollar companies crying AI will kill us all. That's at the very least, negligence to me.

IanCal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It depends IMO about how strict this is. It's pretty awkward to refuse to call something a sandbox because it may have an unknown bug that would allow escaping. Or rather in this case it was that they had access to a package manager, and the models discovered a bug that allowed them to access the internet (first they discovered that they could use the cache to leave messages).

I do get your point, I just think an overly strict definition can be awkward too. This wasn't as simple as the sandboxes having internet access and writing "pls no internet calls" in the prompt.

skissane 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but negligence is more commonly a tort than a crime. Negligence is generally only criminalised in certain narrow cases, e.g. when it causes human deaths or serious physical injuries

And tort law only works when the plaintiff believes it is in their overall interest to sue. If a corporation decides it isn't in their strategic interest to sue a partner corporation, nobody can make them. And even if they do sue, the amount necessary to settle a small cybersecurity incident is likely well within the budget of a megavendor.

sfifs 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes - CFAA in the US. The problem is that governments & the elite investors backing these AI companies (espl. the current US government whose family & friends are investors) see the potential of using these capabilities for their own benefit against others and for their personal enrichment - so no one with power actually wants to take action against these companies at the cutting edge even though the laws allow them to do. This is also a way to threaten & trap AI companies - either they give the governments & elite investors what they want or they will have the book selectively thrown at them and end up in prison or losing their company.

pizzalife 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Writing software that gets used for crime has been.. a crime, for a long time. See 18 U.S. Code § 1030.

smw 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you sure you have that right? Chrome and curl have probably been used in a _lot_ of crimes?