Take out the word "AI", and this is simply an organization's (OpenAI's) products causing real damage to all of these platforms around the world.

You want AI labs to pace? Simply hold them liable for their products.

▲

podocarp 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes exactly. If a fireworks factory blew up half a town due to negligence, it doesn't matter if there's intent or not. Someone has to pay for the damages, and regardless of penalty half the town is on fire. The facts are, that something made by openai went to do xyz. It doesn't matter if it's an accident. Of course the penalties are different but there's no argument that there should be a penalty. It doesn't matter if it's a cat or dog or AI or employee that did it.

▲

redox99 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure if you're expressing how you'd like US law to work, or how it actually works. Because in reality intent matters enormously. Like felony charges and people in jail vs civil lawsuits.

	▲	girvo 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Intent doesn’t factor that strongly into negligence, though, which is what they were explicitly talking about. Though it may depend on your jurisdiction.
	▲	ipython 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		doesn't the reasoning trace provide "intent"?
	▲	cyanydeez 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		negligence is the word you're looking for. US law has a lot of negligence crimes. But they're not even talking about that, either.

▲

ngruhn 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is not just fair it's probably one of the best/simplest proxy regulations to pace the frontier. So far everyones been asking for regulation but it's unclear how that should look like. No X parameter models? Only N version releases per year? It's all kinda arbitrary and probably leads to ridiculous constraints and loopholes. But "you pay big time if AI goes rogue" sounds pretty straightforward.

	▲	pixl97 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So there are two different problems here, well, more than that so I'll cover what I see. Putting liability on big companies for their AI is a good thing, and we need to do it. It will most likely stop them from directly being the assholes that destroy the world. Problem: You've actually done nothing to stop the world from being destroyed. Many countries have the death penalty for murder yet we see murders still occur all the time in those countries. Post ad hoc laws do not stop bad things from happening, they only assign punishment after occurs. Perfectly fine for when Bob murders Jon, completely and totally useless for when your agentic AI makes a virus and kills 80% of the earths human population. We are just a few algorithmic discoveries away from SOTA AI being billion dollar endeavors to groups of people pooling resources can make their own. There are already plenty of AI deathcult members that would do something just like that if necessary. They aren't going to do this out in public either, it will be hidden until the moment it's not and we have a big fucking problem. And this isn't even brining up the issue of military AI use and development. They've got the taste of an AI hacking machine. There is no way in hell they are going to stop now.

▲

sebzim4500 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would that really make a difference? Surely the damages from all these hacks added together don't even add to an hour of expenses of a frontier lab

▲

Zizizizz 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if Glock, Smith & Wesson, Sturmn, Ruger and Co. would start panicking if that were to happen.

I agree they should though.

▲

jeroenhd 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If Glocks started going off on their own during the manufacturing process, leaving bullet holes in the buildings around them, you can be sure that the factory would get in trouble.

This isn't even "an openai customer tried to hack someone", which can be defended. This is the AI companies themselves fucking around.

▲

petesergeant 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What do you see as the negligence angle for the gun makers here?

	▲	Zizizizz 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't see an all encompassing one but I could see similar arguments being made in a courtroom around high capacity magazines. (I'm not saying I think the analogy is perfect, but there has been plenty of of lobbying that has stifled - to some - sensible gun regulation that could help reduce the severity of mass shootings. I still mostly fall on the side of the individual doing the action bearing mostly all of the responsibility but if the product you build makes it too easy to do awful things, I think there is some responsibility to go around. A better analogy may have been the troubles Meta has faced around child protections on their platforms. Technically the abuse and problems have stemmed from individuals too, but they've in many respects enabled the situation by failing to moderate or flag warning signs. OpenAI is failing to moderate the models in similar ways.

▲

mlnj 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Remember that these systems still operate as infrastructure inside the companies.

If new weapons still operating inside any of these companies spew a million bullets on my house, they are still liable. Humans are setting these system up and they still have to behave responsibly.

▲

hydcghbb 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

bamboozled 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Going to be cool when one of their bio division agents creates the next plague.

▲

kypro 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does this work for foreign (non-state) actors using Chinese open source models? That's going to be the larger problem.

▲

vanviegen 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm assuming the AI labs are (quietly) settling with their victims.

▲

Hamuko 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m assuming they’re telling their victims to go pound some dirt, if at all.

▲

vanviegen 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Uh, why? I don't see what the labs have to gain by engaging in lengthy law suits forcing them to disclose all kinds of internal details and attracting the wrong kind of publicity. Just to save on insignificant (to them) amounts of money?

▲

Hamuko 14 hours ago | parent [-]

How many hacking lawsuits are they currently in? And are they also settling all copyright claims too?

	▲	vanviegen 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> How many hacking lawsuits are they currently in? Zero, as far as I know. Which is exactly my point. Copyright lawsuits are a different matter, as the scale of any potential settlements would be more than even these companies could take.

▲

lofaszvanitt 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah but in the USA, above a certain size, you are untouchable.