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.

▲

bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No ... there is no need for 'escaped containment', there are no 'agents'.

That's just jargon.

It's just software

We have all the laws we need.

If some company ended up doing some horrible thing, we would not say 'companies software exposed 1 Million identities'.

We would say 'ABC Corp. exposed 1 Million entities'.

There is no 'agent'.

ABC Corp 'did it' ... or the individual in the org 'did it'.

The 'gun' did not 'shoot' the other man; we say 'a man shot another man'.

That's it.

And yes, Dr. Bengio is bit odd with all of this.

▲

blue1 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Note that we already already apply this principle not only to software, but also to some sentient beings.

If your dog kills someone, you are accused of murder.

[at least, in the jurisdiction where I live]

If your dog gets this treatment, why not your AI?

▲

queenkjuul 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Too generous. CEO Of $CORP caused millions of innocent people's lives to be damaged

	▲	bluegatty 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm inclined to want to agree ... but that's not how it works with limited liability corps. At least we have laws for what OpenAI 'does' to others, in whatever form.

▲

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

Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough? Or will these creators get "off the hook" by using their agents to find loopholes, sway public opinion or even convince Trump to grant them immunity?

Still, I have no idea why OpenAI & co. are not being sued for these hacks.

▲

stateofinquiry 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My opinion and based on my observations: The recent track record with courts, prosecutors, and lawmakers keeping social media companies accountable is a relevant case and does not encourage me. It has taken a long time (decade +) for society to recognize the harms and finally start holding some to (partial) account. If you want an older precedent, the tobacco companies were able to dodge liability for multiple decades after knowing the harms from use of their products.

So, your question is spot on- I think the speed will be an issue. On resilience, I am more optimistic.

The old quote, "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind very fine" (as well as I can remember it) seems to apply. I expect lawsuits to start landing in the coming years.

	▲	bluegatty 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Tobacco companies 'liability' is completely different scenario. They were held responsible for basically misleading people, and that's 'complicated'. If OpenAI 'software' goes out and does something, it's OpenAI's fault. If Walmart revs up a truck, points it downtown, and 'lets the truck go' ... that is Walmart's fault. There's nothing complicated about liability, no need to see their internal emails, no need to gather 'intent'. This not like Instagram 'social harms' either, which is more like Tobacco. We don't need complicated thinking - agents are not externalized for their controllers. 'It's just software'. The fact we're even having discussions about it just crazy frankly. OpenAI broke into HuggingFace, that's it. HF can sue them, or not, or whatever.

▲

nicce 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Agree! My only concern is - is the judicial system fast enough, and resilient enough?

We already have the laws. It is just software. But somehow people are confused that it is not.

▲

queenkjuul 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't say it enough how angry it makes me that a kid i knew in high school who anonymously reported a vulnerability on his college network was hunted down and given federal charges, yet not one single person at OAI or else will see even the threat of consequences for deliberate infiltration of random networks.