Yeah, but this is more like if the Smith & Wesson factory had a cannon mounted on top of it that was mostly used for useful things (blasting roads through mountain passes) and then occasionally they happened to blast another factory.

For me the analogy doesn't totally hold up. Suppose the CEO of Smith & Wesson were to host a firing range on their own property without adequate barriers in place to keep stray bullets from hitting neighboring houses, vehicles, and businesses. Maybe that analogy isn't perfect, but seems closer to what is actually happening.

But OpenAI didn't just make the gun, they're also the ones wielding it. Imagine the Smith & Wesson CEO himself was negligent with his own personal gun.

Ah, but that's because when the gun was purchased, it actually changed ownership.

This is not the case with SaaS services.

The agents of OpenAI hacking other systems is not remotely the same as e.g. Smith & Wesson selling a product that others use. It is OpenAI, the company, that is commiting these crimes and someone needs to be held accountable. After all, if someone commits murder with a gun, regardless of what happens to Smith & Wesson executive weanies, someone will be charged with a crime.

It is not the same, especially when the agent is running a task for the lab. Anyway, what I'm proposing are new laws that establish this.

> This has been litigated endlessly with guns. The ceo of Smith & Wesson is not personally responsible for what people do with their guns.

This is a deflection. A human is responsible for the use of a gun. The individual/corporation ought to be responsible for the actions of their agent. If you purchase an agent from someone else it’s your responsibility according to the terms of your agreement. And, as in many other things in life, there ought to be certain rights certain parties cannot legally be allowed to sign away.

Better description would be if they build a platform where they attached their guns to allow shooting say deers over internet. Then added automation and deer recognition to that system. And if then system shot someone who happened to pass by I would hold both the company, the ceo and owner of the gun responsible for murder.

The CEO of S&W also isn't saying that their technology is going to kill everyone in ten years and that governments "regulating" them from themselves is the only answer

Gun companies don't market their guns as sentient and capable of independent decision making. Nor do they build systems for shooting things that they host and take money. Gun companies are very clear who is in control and where their responsibility ends.

Financial companies have KYC rules and regulations as they are responsible for reporting illegal activity by account holders. I imagine AI regulations would look similar to that.

You ought to include the fact that you work at OAI in your post

That’s true, but people don’t typically say “this Smith & Wesson gun killed someone”; they recognize that the person pulling the trigger is responsible.

With LLMs, at least in the cases of internal/test models doing things they shouldn’t, the people “pulling the trigger” are the board and CEO.

[dead]

[dead]

Imagine having zero nuance.. jeez.

Reading posts on here is slowly becoming akin to brain rot.

If this law were in place and enforced, Altman would already be facing multiple felony charges for the Hugging Face incident alone.

The underlying cause is exactly those people who make the rules not being responsible for the negative effects they cause?

"CEOs" are perhaps only the lowest rung of those. That doesn't mean the idea of "nobody is responsible" was anything other but learned helplessness.

Corporations have to be held accountable for their actions. Pretending, that was impossible is a weird kind of defeatism that only serves a very small elite.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Saying having zero accountability is the same as having some does not help.