Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

iowaattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#31

Post by kdheiwns »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #13
ArcHound wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should still be accountable, the same way you're responsible and accountable for what your dog or car does.

If we are going to start punishing companies for security negligence, there are WAY worse cases than these models breaking out that have nothing to do with AI. This is bikeshedding at its best. Also people would just stop disclosing bad things. You already see this in the airline industry where pilots don't report mental illness because of the retributive nature of the punishment.

"But another company did some different bad thing" is the excuse employees of bad companies all go to immediately. Just because another person did something bad and hasn't been adequately punished doesn't mean you should get a pass. If one person gets away with going 50 MPH over the speed limit, it doesn't mean every person should be allowed to do it. Everyone should be punished, but there are always instances of some cases falling through the cracks. It doesn't mean the crack should be widened so all cases fall through.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#33

Post by DannyBee »

TZubiri wrote: post #19
hallway_monitor wrote: post #4

SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibility falls to the CEO. Charge Altman with hacking hugging face. Throw him in jail where he belongs. That will realign safety incentives. If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged???

No law needed, that's the way it already is.

Lawyer here.

Not quite.

Agents in the principal/agent sense have to be human.

However, every court to have ever considered it have held the human/company driving the agent responsible under vicarious liability/negligence/etc principles.

The only real defense that folks have tried is to claim the agent acted "autonomously", which no court has bought so far.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#34

Post by solenoid0937 »

kdheiwns wrote: post #31
solenoid0937 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are going to start punishing companies for security negligence, there are WAY worse cases than these models breaking out that have nothing to do with AI. This is bikeshedding at its best. Also people would just stop disclosing bad things. You already see this in the airline industry where pilots don't report mental illness because of the retributive nature of the punishment.

"But another company did some different bad thing" is the excuse employees of bad companies all go to immediately. Just because another person did something bad and hasn't been adequately punished doesn't mean you should get a pass. If one person gets away with going 50 MPH over the speed limit, it doesn't mean every person should be allowed to do it. Everyone should be punished, but there are always instances of som…

It's more like there are many people going at 120 MPH in a 50 MPH zone, that have ran over real people, but you punish the guy that self-reported doing 60 MPH because he drives a shiny, interesting Lamborghini and not a Prius like the others.

Anyone outraged about these AI incidents is not thinking rationally if they were not much more outraged about everyday companies leaking millions of people's PII, SSNs, which has done actual lasting damage and has been used by actually malicious actors.

People are just directing their anger at AI companies through this pretext. We all know open source models will democratize this ability anyways, so strap in for the ride.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#35

Post by cestith »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #7

Iowa asks? Why don't they just open a criminal investigation related to the hacking of HuggingFace?

It’s actually Iowa leading a coalition of 15 other states making demands. It’s not a prosecution yet, but they demand the preservation of evidence. They’ve promised to protect whistleblowers. They are saying there may be criminal or civil liability involved. They gave them a cease and desist on similar testing until they can show they can do it safely.

The Iowa-led coalition is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

The letter’s last paragraph reads:

    OpenAI has an obligation to act responsibly and to follow State and
    federal laws that protect Americans’ safety and security. When OpenAI takes
   actions that imperil the welfare of our citizens, State Attorneys General will
    step in to protect them. We intend to take all steps necessary to protect our
    States and all Americans from the unprecedented risks posed by OpenAI’s
    irresponsible products and conduct.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#36

Post by ilogik »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #25
ArcHound wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me about such cases, genuinely interested. I still think we should take the opportunity to discuss this case in particular.

There have been data breaches where the SSNs and PII of millions of people have been exposed. That is far more harmful in real terms than any of the OpenAI/Anthropic mess.

An in the EU at least there are laws that fine companies that don't take security seriously.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#37

Post by ricardobayes »

DannyBee wrote: post #33
TZubiri wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No law needed, that's the way it already is.

Lawyer here. Not quite. Agents in the principal/agent sense have to be human. However, every court to have ever considered it have held the human/company driving the agent responsible under vicarious liability/negligence/etc principles. The only real defense that folks have tried is to claim the agent acted "autonomously", which no court has bought so far.

Who bears the responsibility in a hypotethical scenario when a self-driving rideshare vehicle, without a human driver, god-forbid, hits a pedestrian?

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#38

Post by sscaryterry »

jstanley wrote: post #8
hallway_monitor wrote: post #4

SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibility falls to the CEO. Charge Altman with hacking hugging face. Throw him in jail where he belongs. That will realign safety incentives. If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged???

Because nobody did it on purpose?

Ignorance is not a defence in law.

Re: Iowa-led states ask OpenAI to keep their bots on a leash

#39

Post by sebzim4500 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #17
jstanley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody did it on purpose?

If I let my dog off leash and it bites you and causes grave injury, no harm done then?

In this case though no damages were done. It's more like you let your dog off the leash and it scared me a bit.
Post reply on HN