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

41–50 of 129 posts

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

#41

Post by trillic »

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?

Correct, no mens rea, unless we're talking the internal reasoning trace of the model.

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

#42

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
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???

>WHY has no one been charged??? I doubt huggingface wants charges filed.

They would be criminal charges. It doesn't matter what huggingface wants.

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

#44

Post by bluGill »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
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???

>WHY has no one been charged??? I doubt huggingface wants charges filed.

A crime was committed, if there is enough evidence then the state is required to prosecute and the victim has not choice in this. The victim can say they don't care and that will often hold weight for the prosecution, but that is the government's choice not the victims.

The victim sometimes file a civil lawsuit against the criminal, that is their choice. That is not a criminal matter though and different rules apply.

The attack was only a couple weeks ago. Looks like the lawyers responsible are gathering evidence and preparing to file charges, but they need to figure out exactly what crimes were committed by who before they can do so, thus more investigation is needed.

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

#45

Post by dominotw »

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???

then usa will become like europe that cant innovate out of regulations bag. saftety is meaningless if you have no food eat.

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

#46

Post by DannyBee »

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???

Lawyer here: This part does not require a new law.

Even though agents are not agents in the principal/agent legal sense (because agents have to be human), for the purposes of criminality, it does not matter.

Agents do not act autonomously (and every court to ever consider it has agreed), and therefore they would simply be considered an instrumentality of the crime.

So that part does not need a new law.

The real blocker is often that a lot of the crimes you could charge here require specific intent. Because the agent is just an instrumentality, it does not have separate intent (and can't be part of a conspiracy), so it's the intent of hte person using the agent that would matter. Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime.

There are not a lot of non-intent crimes in this area, and this is on purpose. Otherwise you could get charged with a crime for say, running nmap and having it accidentally shutdown something important or killed a person or whatever because someone hooked it up to a TCP port.

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

#47

Post by matheusmoreira »

_verandaguy wrote: post #28
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???

I think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)

> you own what your bot writes

Kinda weird that this is everyone's attitude while the copyright lawyers are saying the opposite. Total liability without any actual ownership.

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

#48

Post by reddozen »

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.

> there are WAY worse cases than these models breaking out that have nothing to do with AI.

And? Welcome to the big boy world. This isn't playground rules where you can complain "But Bobby was doing bad things too why isn't he in trouble?"

But you know this already. You're just pretending not to. Why?

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

#50

Post by utopiah »

jwally wrote: post #6

Prediction: AI ends humanity not via some super cool/scary/robopocalypse - but as a marketing stunt gone wrong when a Frontier LLM accidentally knocks out water/electric/gas by hacking in and trying to patch them. Phillip K. Dick meets Idiocracy.

I remember (sorry can't give a proper quote) a biologist interviews about the fear of lab grown "super" seeds escaping the lab. They chuckled basically saying that nature is a very VERY challenging place. There are plenty of ecological niches but they are well guarded by incumbents.

Sure some new hacks will take place, including on poorly guarded infrastructure and yes it will have some very unfortunate consequences... but also infrastructure is precisely designed to be resilient. There is quite a bit of failsafe, redundancy, etc built in which is precisely why those projects are typically slow and expensive, unlike a random website for a restaurant.

TL;DR: nope, some isolated incidents will happen but without chain reactions.

Post reply on HN