Thats gonna depend on the state in the US, but you can definitely get charged for negligently failing to do background checks as someone operating a daycare center. Operating computers on public networks, you assume a level of responsibility to not wreak havoc, just like a daycare operator assumes the responsibility of vetting caretakers.

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>but you can definitely get charged for negligently failing to do background checks as someone operating a daycare center.

And openai isn't putting AI agents on the open internet either. They vaguely tried to sandbox the agents. You could argue that openai didn't do enough, but hindsight is 20/20, and in the pedophile case, you can probably come up with all sorts of clues post-hoc that the daycare could have picked up on, but didn't.

▲

drdexebtjl an hour ago | parent [-]

> openai isn't putting AI agents on the open internet either.

They did? Not in the training run which led to the HuggingFace hack, but other runs had agents being trained on information retrieval tasks, like the RubyGems hack.

> You could argue that openai didn't do enough, but hindsight is 20/20

No, you can argue they didn’t do enough because they didn’t.

Air-gapping is a concept you learn in cybersecurity 101.

There’s no world in which this is just incompetence, the sandbox must have been designed to fail, or at least not designed to contain an agent with capabilities that they had been publicly saying it had.

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

>They did? Not in the training run which led to the HuggingFace hack, but other runs had agents being trained on information retrieval tasks, like the RubyGems hack.

The agents were sandboxed, but they escaped the sandbox by using a 0day in artifactory.

>Air-gapping is a concept you learn in cybersecurity 101.

And that's plainly untennable in cases where access to docs/packages are required. You're just proving the "hindsight is 20/20" point. Most hacks could conceivably be prevented through airgapping, so does that mean every entity who got hacked is criminally liable because they didn't airgap their systems?

This isn't limited to air gaps, you can make similar arguments for other security measures. For instance computing history is littered with kernel EoPs and hypervisor escapes. Does that mean anyone who uses a shared hosting environment and gets hacked as a result should be blamed because they didn't follow "cybersecurity 101" and running everything on bare metal?

▲

drdexebtjl 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

A local mirror of the latest N versions of every package and docs of any package ecosystem they want is perfectly viable.

No, not anyone who uses a shared hosting environment, but certainly anyone who runs unaligned models they know have cyber weapon capabilities. They should be considered an untrusted 3rd party.

	▲	gruez 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>A local mirror of the latest N versions of every package and docs of any package ecosystem they want is perfectly viable. Something tells me that's harder than it sounds, given that even ci/cd environments don't bother maintaining package caches for npm/pypi, even though that would provide massive bandwidth savings.