> If you don't want to suffer from it, you're going to have to find much better defense measures.

So if someone opens your unintentionally unlocked front door and steals your laptop, you don't care who's liable?

ETA: There are absolutely burn bans in place in the scenario you're talking about, and common sense prevents those from lighting fires otherwise. In the absolute extreme case that someone _ACCIDENTALLY_ set a fire, without negligence, we have a due process system to handle that. When I see evidence of this for the massive amounts of capital flowing into these companies, I'll gladly eat my words.

▲

bigiain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> So if someone opens your unintentionally unlocked front door and steals your laptop, you don't care who's liable?

I'm not the person you're responding to, but...

If I hear my neighborhood has started to become targeted by people checking houses for unlocked doors and stealing stuff, I think an appropriate response for me is to ensure it is difficult or impossible for me to "inadvertently" leave my own doors unlocked so my stuff doesn't get stolen, and also to encourage or perhaps even enforce[1] my neighbors to ensure their doors are always locked to make this sort of theft impossible and remove the temptation for that sort of crime.

1 - Where I'm from, you can be fined for leaving you car unlocked, and cops have been known to walk round testing doorhandles and issuing fines: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-leaving-you...

	▲	gitonup an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I clearly have committed the mortal sin of an imperfect analogy, which in this case may not even be relevant, as the article in question implies that the data wasn't left "unlocked." But giving you the benefit of the doubt, what's the crime for actually breaking into a car that was left unlocked and taking things? ETA: and furthermore, what crime is worse? And should it be?

▲

Chance-Device 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He probably cares more about still having a laptop.

What are you getting at? Nobody’s saying that OpenAI aren’t or shouldn’t be liable for what their agents do. What I am implying above is that this is being blown out of proportion, especially since the article I’m seeing is about a politician saying things that he thinks will poll well with the anti-AI crowd.

	▲	thorbutt an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Perhaps, yes, you could argue that "accessed" and "hacked" have a different intent. However, Australia is showing itself to be one of the few countries to have a backbone against big tech. Still open to investment and setting policies towards new data centres, starting to debate copyright law reform, already implemented R16 social media bans. Truly no place I'd rather be.
	▲	gitonup an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is what the politician in question said: "The AI agent encountered repeated blocks while seeking information from the government portal but found ways around them, ultimately gaining unauthorised access to other areas." Your comment immediately gave more credence to OpenAI than him. I don't agree that's appropriate because OpenAI has a vested interest in that narrative and I attempted to challenge it in a way that doesn't default to OpenAI. The article in question is not from a publication I trust to be able to handle the technical details in a way that will resonate with their average audience. That is what I'm getting at.

▲

pixl97 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

OK, the Chinese models have also hacked people. What exactly do you expect law enforcement to do.

While in the OAI case we can easily treat it as a law enforcement action. When Iran does it? What are you going to do start a war?

The forest in this analog is the internet. As you well know it is filled with threat actors that don't give two shits about your laws. You have been warned. It's your fault when you get burned and have exactly zero recourse.

	▲	gitonup 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In the OAI case where we can easily treat it as a law enforcement action, that's a far cry from "who cares who's liable." If the OAI case can be a law enforcement action, we're on the same page. The fact that sovereign nations don't land under our jurisdiction is not an argument against following up or restricting those that do. OAI is the only matter I'm commenting on.