| ▲ | Xirdus 4 hours ago |
| It's very likely it violates the DMCA "breaking digital lock" provisions but the responsibility is sufficiently diluted that it's impossible to charge anyone in particular. |
|
| ▲ | stronglikedan an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| There have been news stories where individual OpenAI users have been investigated based on their prompts. If OpenAI can point the police to specific users of their software, they can certainly point them to whichever of their own employees are involved in a crime. AI is just a tool, and the person prompting it is the one responsible for the outcome. No dilution there. |
|
| ▲ | immibis2 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It doesn't need to be twisted to violate the DMCA anticircumvention clause because it is already just plain old hacking. |
|
| ▲ | VyseofArcadia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you have to charge an individual? Can you not charge the corporate "person" that is OpenAI? Sorry if it is a stupid question, as mentioned above I am legally naïve. |
| |
| ▲ | yonatan8070 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I, too, have no idea about legal matters. But there have been many cases where companies (Google, Apple, Meta, etc...) got fined millions or billions of dollars for various violations like antitrust. I assume that breaching into third-party systems should carry similar fines. Especially for systems that are for all intents and purposes shared infrastructure. Just imagine how many systems you could compromise if you got hold of RubyGems, PyPI, NPM, Debian, etc. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The same concept that allows a corporation to sue and be sued allows it to be charged with crimes | | |
| ▲ | brookst 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you show intent? There is no negligent hacking statute, and HN of all places I would expect people to be sensitive to the implications of creating one. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bix6 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is the responsibility diluted? Charge the CEO… |
| |
| ▲ | brookst 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Great, you’re the attorney at the CEO’s trial. To get a conviction, you’re going to have to show that he willfully committed this specific crime. There are no negligent or stochastic hacking laws, you have to show this specific crime was at his direction. Do you think there is evidence of this? | | |
| ▲ | shakna 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > There are no negligent or stochastic hacking laws I'm sure that Andrew Auernheimer would be pleased to hear that. [0] For accessing a publicly accessible endpoint, that was completely undefended and didn't actually require "hacking", he was convicted of "exceeding authorised access". You _don't_ have to show intent under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for the first count. > knowingly accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access [1] "Knowingly", not "intentionally", as in the other counts. You only have to show that: a) They trained a system to access without authorization (hacking) b) The system that was trained exceeded authorized access As responsibility falls to the operator with automated systems, the company becomes liable. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/21/ipad-hack-statement-of-res... [1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/Co... | |
| ▲ | hallway_monitor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So we make a law that the CEO is responsible for actions of any agent created or operated by anyone in their company. CEOs will get serious about AI security real quick. Honestly we need to do something. There needs to be a single wringable neck. | | |
| ▲ | Octoth0rpe an hour ago | parent [-] | | > There needs to be a single wringable neck. Does there? Could be the whole c-suite/board. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'd settle for any number of necks. Currently, when a corporation fucks something up, breaks the law, or hurts or even kills people, there aren't consequences besides a tiny token fine and a strongly worded letter telling them to not do it again or they'll get another tiny fine and letter, and their CEO might even have to sit down in front of Congress to say a few words and look sad. |
|
| |
| ▲ | VyseofArcadia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It would seem to me that the difference between the corporate world and organized crime is that a corporation can get away with, "the responsibility is too diffuse" but the mafia at least has to go to the trouble of finding a fall guy. | |
| ▲ | bix6 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly yeah I bet there is and I hope to someday read about it if the government ever gets off its ass. Someone set up the “experiment”… |
|
|
|
| ▲ | woah an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Issuing subpeonas, raiding offices, and dragging key employees into interrogation rooms as you would find in any normal criminal investigation would be more than enough to ensure "AI safety" without any new regulations, acts of congress, Bernie Sanders campaign speeches, or even charges filed. |
|
| ▲ | oliwarner 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A copyright law seems an odd place to start. This is computer misuse. |
| |
| ▲ | VyseofArcadia 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The DMCA is a bit overly broad to be considered just a copyright law. For example, just breaking encryption on a DVD is technically illegal regardless of whether you then go on to do something otherwise illegal (make and sell bootlegs) or perfectly legal (make a space-shifted backup copy on your hard drive). IIRC this was an intentional handout to media companies who were angry that ripping CDs is perfectly legal. They had to find a way to make doing the same with DVDs illegal. | | |
| ▲ | oliwarner 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those provisions are specifically for the breaking or circumvention of technical measures designed to prevent copyright infringement. I don't see a parallel here. | | |
| ▲ | immibis2 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They've been twisted to support almost anything, for example repairing your tractor is illegal because of this same law. But I agree this is just plain old hacking under a plain old reading of the CFAA and doesn't need any twists. |
|
|
|
