>If it happens 50 times and they keep doing shocked pikachu face at some point they look like the toddler who tosses their sippy cup on the floor and shouts "oopse!"

yes, they look very silly. but that's not how intent works.

openai is being negligent (willfully so, in my opinion). but i have seen no evidence that they intended to specifically hack huggingface. which is the part that the cfaa wants.

again, there are other laws and other ways to hold openai responsible. but the cfaa is a poor choice.

▲

jordanb 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Again how many times before intent is clear? This is HN thinking law is software.

At some point it becomes clear that openai should expect this to happen and so when they keep doing it, it is because they intend it to happen.

When the mobster says "it'd be a shame if something happened to this place" the law recognizes that as a threat due to the mob's history of making such statements before burning places out.

	▲	john_strinlai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>Again how many times before intent is clear? i have been an expert witness on several cfaa cases. the number of times a company is negligent is not a factor when it comes to determining the intent of each charge. >This is HN thinking law is software. this is me relying on my experience with these types of cases.