None of what Wikimedia accuses OpenAI of seems technically novel, aside from having AI do the bidding. I can't imagine a company doing these things in the past and maintaining any sort of reputation. Is it really a matter of adding new regulation, or just treating them the way any other company would be treated?

▲

jstummbillig 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, in the past, there was probably only a very small number of cases where some party hacked an institution and then worked with them to remedy the situation to the best of their abilities.

Which is not to say that any of this is okay and should just be excused, but failing to recognize this fairly significant difference is probably not a great start to any discussion about the issue.

▲

nemomarx 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

jstummbillig 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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?

Yes, it does, because the damaged party is less likely to press charges. And when it came to sentencing, like you said, how the damaging party handled themselves would also be considered (in most western jurisdictions).

▲

someonebaggy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	pixl97 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Now switch it to "your dog broke in and destroyed stuff", ya it's still damages but that have to be paid for, but crime gets much harder to prove.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

jimbokun 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well I think OpenAI’s reputation is also shot but it’s irrelevant to their valuation.

▲

avaer 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

Then we would find out if the argument doesn't hold (in which case there should be liability and dire consequences for the labs), or the argument holds (in which case YOLO, AI labs can blame the AI and we can all do it too).

At least that would make things consistent.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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?