| ▲ | afry1 2 hours ago |
| This is a misreading of that pull quote. They're not "learning from the OAI staff", but lawbreaking and disregard for regulation is absolutely at the heart of OpenAI. And the activities that this company takes (or doesn't take) directly influences what the models do (or don't do). The fish rots from the head down. Models don't learn, but I find "OpenAI models attack websites and take anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company" completely correct. The rest of the paragraph from the article: > We do not have to get too deep into the nature-vs.-nurture argument to suspect that OpenAI executives’ cavalier attitude regarding the taking of information that is not theirs has filtered down to their researchers and the products they create. You don’t have to stretch to paint this picture: OpenAI models are attacking websites and taking anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company. |
|
| ▲ | GTP 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | jdiff an hour ago | parent [-] | | Everything goes into the training data. What is prioritized and what behavior is targeted out of that data is something that comes from OpenAI. | | |
| ▲ | GTP an hour ago | parent [-] | | True, but we saw alignment issues also on topics that aren't part of OpenAI's business model or business conduct. Like an agent tasked with solving build failures due to failing test cases deciding to "solve" the problem by deleting the failing tests. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pj_mukh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "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? |
|
| ▲ | bluegatty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "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. |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The long list of laws and regulations that would have had a low-status individual jailed if caught. If you don't believe me, try hacking some government sites and see what happens to you. But OpenAI is a huge corporation and low-status laws don't apply. | |
| ▲ | dspillett an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > and harassed some other sites, it's not good, but it's not specifically breaking laws I'm sure it would be considered a breach of the UK's Computer Misuse Act, and there are no doubt statues elsewhere that are relevant too. Once is an accident. Twice is incompetence. Three+ is, at best, pushing your luck to see what you can get away with. | | |
| ▲ | bluegatty an hour ago | parent [-] | | If they broke laws then they would be investigated. And I totally support that. But I don't think they did. They could get sued, mind you. | | |
| ▲ | ykonstant an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >If they broke laws then they would be investigated. Ah, I love your optimism. | | | |
| ▲ | esseph 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/09/29/congress/de... | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If they broke laws then they would be investigated. Not a fact but a hope. Most lawbreaking is never investigated. It has to be discovered, the authorities have to be alerted, and then they have to choose to investigate. See the recent Cornell University gangrapes for proof that authorities can choose to simply not investigate. > They could get sued, mind you. If they didn't break laws, as you imply, the lawsuit should be tossed out as frivolous. (Spoiler: they did break laws.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | bsenftner an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What laws and regulations? IP theft, of published media, to the scale of "all of it". If it were music and film and not text, the music & film industries would have nuked Silicon Valley by now. Which shows the relative power of popular media versus text publishing. |
|
