I'm not convinced about this. In the article, they also say that they could feed the model with copyright law like that would fix the issue. Unfortunately, not only the LLMs have already been trained on law taxtbooks and codes, but we also have examples of people on the internet were models disregard precise instructions only to apologize later.

Note that this is not to be seen as an excuse for OpenAI to avoid responsibility, just like parents are responsible for damages caused by their kids.

"OpenAI models attack websites and take anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company"

Wait, what did they hack and take into training data? On the whole, I totally buy that OAI is legally (and criminally) responsible for their agents, but surely, damages have to be proven?

"but lawbreaking and disregard for regulation is absolutely at the heart of OpenAI. "

No it is not.

What laws and regulations are they breaking?

Their agents broke out of a harness and harassed some other sites, it's not good, but it's not specifically breaking laws. Other companies are treating it as accidental, it mostly is that.

You're rhetoric here is agitating, conflating. This is my point.

> And we should all know what it means here, too.

It very clearly did not mean “go and hack third parties” though

".. then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way."

This is the hyperble I am referring to.

If you 'honestly can't see it any other way' then maybe consider stepping outside to think how to ground those thoughts a bit.

The AI is not obviously instructed to 'commit acts of violence' and it obviously has guidelines.

By 'whatever means' would imply, things like 'creative collaboration, using novel research, experiments' etc.

It was setup in a harness that was weak - I think it's fair to maybe question the strength of that harness, and the oversight, but that's a different question.

It was an agent that broke through some networking/containerization, it's not 'murder and violence on the streets' for gosh sakes.

"And we should all know what it means here, too."

No - this is a delusion, resulting from lack of context, and creative projection, and possibly a lack of exposure to real world business conditions.

It's fully appropriate to be cynical, but in a way that makes sense, and is consistent with reality.

This is a lab experiment that leaked, not some mafia activity.

I highly doubt the legal system is browsing social media to make their decisions. It is worth calling out, but it should be called out accurately (and that might also help understand why the legal system is making the decisions that it is).

It's not unusual for intent to play part in legal framing of an issue. I'm not very fond of the "cybercrime" angle, as it kind of lets them off the hook if they're able to prove a lack of intent. Meanwhile what we actually see is negligence.

From what I have learned, to charge someone for hacking the prosecutor has to show that the perpetrator had intent.

Unfortunately, gross negligence -- which you could argue to be the case here -- is often not enough, unless you could show that it has caused real harm.

From my perspective, it is only a matter of time before it is: and that's why there is need for better legislation covering what AI models do.

This is a good question (unfortunately a good answer is given in the article), but it is orthogonal to the why LLMs are committing cyber crimes.

That is not obviously true.

If all evidence suggests that it is at most due to negligence, you could expect the same results.

The 'capabilities' are more around creative problem solving. The notion of legality, property, propriety - those are second order issues.

They are not making models to be evil.

They are making them to be relatively autonomous though, and 'identity centric' as opposed to just making them 'policy machines'.

Altman and Dario are not evil or even jerks really. They are 'talking really big' and there might be some sketchy underhanded things but I think relatively minor.

Also - given how powerfully bad AI can be, this could be 100x worse.

I think most other companies would have weaponized the AI a long time ago for competitive use etc..

OAI and Anthropic are private companies, projecting narratives way out of proportion but they are not evil, at least not yet.

Jensen, Dario, Altman in similar category. Not like Musk. And a bit different than Sudar or Satya who are more polite board-approved corporate creatures.