Nvidia has a huge stake in OpenAI, both in terms of them being one of Nvidia's biggest customers and also via direct investment. After HuggingFace was hacked and they expressed the position that they were the forgiving sort, for a price, there was a distinct possibility that HuggingFace would become a vocal shakedown artist that would start protesting at inconvenient times until silenced by more money, especially if they get hacked again. By complete coincidence, Nvidia took the one move that silences HuggingFace for good.

Nvidia isn't going to sue OpenAI. No chance.

Jensen is wish-casting as hard as anyone has ever casted a wish. That EK show interview made me throw my phone.

a fine hope if unlikely. but I wanted to also note in friendly fashion that the word you want is precedent (or precedents) - precedence has a connotation of "first among" rather than precedent's "came before."

I think a good bunch of Jensen's revenues are coming from OpenAI so that's not happening.

It is a broader, pre-existing problem. For example, most truck drivers in some states who don't tie down their rebar are not stopped, and it doesn't come up until another vehicle is actually hit.

> distinguish between compromising a network and using public apis in a way that might be counter to their intent.

I believe weev got in legal trouble under the CFAA for this very thing with his 2010 AT&T escapade. AT&T had all that data sitting on a public server with no authentication necessary, just a SIM ID to get that customer's PII. Truthfully AT&T should have been hit with negligence...you don't secure a bank vault with a screen door, but we don't hold anyone accountable for other people's data in America.

What is "exceeding authorized access" if not "using APIs in a way counter to their intent"?

is that relevant here? let's say I make a million requests to the APIs of open-source, community projects. that wouldn't be seen as being akin to a malicious DDOS?

at the very least, these corporations are essentially being subsidized by community-funded server capacity to make these requests. like other private corporate APIs, they should be charged per-request. until then, this kind of 'accidental' DDOSing should be made illegal and treated accordingly

coming to the defense of these companies just has the net effect of eroding public community projects, increasing their costs, and will push us even more into walled corporate gardens

I propose that we don't reconceptualize either hacking or copyright violation just because rich people want to do it now. I also propose that we don't ignore the RICO statutes.

If you want to make those laws sane, so be it; I hate them. But the only reason there's some pumped-up urgency right now is because rich people want to urgently do whatever the hell they urgently want to do.

People have gone to jail for using public APIs in a way they weren't intended to be used. Make it a big deal then.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Charge the criminal action, fine the bad actors to help make injured parties whole, and regulate the technology to protect against future harms.

These guys will tell you their industry is more dangerous than nuclear power, and we regulate the living shit out of nuclear power. If you think models can't be regulated, look up the export controls on MCNP and tell me how that's different.

Just get over there being open access models in the future unless they are highly regarded.

'Smart' LLMs will be classified as munitions and you and I will get scraps. Even better is if you run Smart models illegally you have a nice visit from the 4chan party van.

If it's their actual goal, we go from a "gosh darn it, our safety protocols just weren't enough." to employees of OpenAI, maybe including their C-suite, conspiring to reach political goals through hacking, which means a few decades in federal prison if someone got a jury to agree with the charge.

Although we'll probably never see evidence, I think this is almost certainly what is happening.

Anthropic has had this happen at least once.

They didn't even realize it happened until openAI captured headlines and they started looking more carefully at past history.

None of the frontier labs are behaving responsibly when it comes to this stuff. OpenAI seems to have it happen more often, but this is one of those situations where 1 time is too many.

If only there was a functioning FCC to investigate potential for foul play in marketing? Surely if any aspect of these episodes turned out to be mischaracterized, let alone staged, there should be consequences, no?

But not for hacking, apparently.

>Uthmeier is seeking an injunction against OpenAI that would prevent the company from advancing new AI models without third-party approved protections, and cut off minors from using its popular chatbot.

Here’s a suit filed in San Francisco

https://lasst.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/LASST-v.-OpenAI...

How much do they need to understand? Say "unauthorized access happened, this lab is responsible for it, here are the fines". The state didn't need to understand networking tech to threaten Aaron Schwartz so why do they need to understand here?

Throw a bunch of them in jail for hacking and organized crime, and they'll self-regulate.

At this point we'd need to stop frontier labs to give law enforcement a chance to even begin to understand what they're looking at

So what? Are you positing that tech companies should be above the law?

Non-trillion-dollar tech companies get cease-and-desist orders from the legal system every day. Just because you're a tech company doesn't mean you get a pass.

>obviously didn't intend on hacking huggingface or whatever

You can’t say this until it’s tried in court and found to be true.

Additionally, I have to remind everyone that “intent” is not someone admitting they meant to do x. It can be established in many ways, including through repeated actions.

If you break into my house and then work with me to the best of your ability to pay me back or repair the window, does that change the potential of your being charged with a crime?

It could change the sentencing maybe, I'm not sure.

> Would be good for the supreme court to rule on a "blame the rogue agent" case

Have any of the private hacking victims sued? Maybe OpenAI is furiously settling in the shadows?

For criminal charges, a prosecutor would have to prove there was negligence, which is a higher bar.

No, there will almost never be criminal charges in a case like that. It will be a wrongful death suit.

And look up Tony West. You only get two choices and they're both on the payrolls of the same monsters.

[flagged]

The position of the legal system is that car accident deaths are not murder.

It is extraordinarily rare for drivers to see criminal charges unless they are drunk. It's a matter for civil court.

>her family in the meantime did an asset transfer so that nothing could be pursued with in civil court.

News articles are reporting that the asset transfer has already been reversed. That kind of stunt never works - courts aren't stupid and they don't like it when you play games.

https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati...

There's way too many TV lawyer commercials and billboards to suggest the penalty is "nothing". Those advertising dollars come from somewhere.

I remember a case from Germany where an elderly lady chose to speed down the pedestrian sidewalk and bike lane and mowed down a whole family in central Berlin. 4 deaths I think, no charges, no suspension.

You probably mean "what the fuck, USA" and even that would be wrong, because another commenter mentioned a case in Germany, and I know about a driver who killed a cyclist (which I knew) in Switzerland and was fined like 500CHF.

You’re right, I removed it.

I guess the difference is I’m also one of the people that might die unlike Lord Pharquad and I still say bring it on.