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

91–100 of 129 posts

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

#91

Post by user43928 »

bluGill wrote: post #87
ux266478 wrote: post #73

> In July, OpenAI unleashed an experimental artificial intelligence model that, without reasonable controls or oversight Either this case is entirely for show (likely), or the AG is really bad at their job. This argument isn't going to win in a court of law, because there were demonstrable reasonable controls and oversight (per the reports at least.)

The job of the AG is to investigate their "demonstrable reasonable controls and oversight" and figure out if they really are reasonable controls and oversight. If they decide the controls and oversight are not enough they can go after the company. Also, even if those controls and oversight exist that doesn't mean there is no crime, it just means the company (and CEO) can get out. An individual at the company can igno…

Go after the company for what?

I am missing here what crime was purportedly committed, and where "controls and oversight" come into play.

From what I heard, hacking related crimes are not applicable because of the lack of intent in the HF case.

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

#92

Post by bluGill »

ux266478 wrote: post #82
mrbluecoat wrote: post #5

Glad the statement was published but sadly nothing will come of it other than a brief formal statement from OpenAI acknowledging safety protocols were lacking, apologizing for the incident, and promises that new safeguards are now in place that will prevent such event from occurring in the future. The threat of semi-autonomous AI threat actors will never go away until the financial incentive that buoys unchecked grow…

> The threat of semi-autonomous AI threat actors will never go away until the financial incentive that buoys unchecked growth at all costs goes away. It's not going away unless computers themselves go away or become massively less powerful. Open weights exist. They're out there. This is an irreversible change. The democratization of persistent cybersec threats is completed and won't be rescinded.

Somebody is supplying power to those AIs. That somebody can be charged for not taking care of their AIs (that is not pulling the plug). Sure this then turns into international crimes, but not allowing crimes to be committed on your side of the border is a big help even if we can't get everything.

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

#93

Post by bluGill »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #79
segmondy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime." I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this. There is definitely negligence, these companies have often talked about the danger of AI. They have often written about how their AI is breaking out of sandboxes or trying to manipulate the person tuning it. They should have had stronger guards and monitoring in place.

Shouldn't the very act of sandboxing the AI be enough of a defense against criminal negligence? Maybe they use the best sandbox available and the AI hacks through it anyway by discovering some zero day or something. They still demonstrated enough prudence to at least attempt to sandbox the AI. Criminal negligence would be "nah nothing's gonna happen" followed by YOLOing it then going home for the weekend.

Maybe. However they used a flaws sandbox when they could have physically not connected any computer to the internet (including wifi)

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

#94

Post by IsTom »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #74
romanows wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"own" in the sense of "be responsible for the consequences". Not in the sense of "be able to grant reproduction rights".

That's how I interpreted it. I just wanted to highlight what I see as a discrepancy. They're putting all the liability on us because it's a tool with no intent of its own while simultaneously saying prompts don't count as creativity because it's not a tool like a photographic camera it's just a casino where you roll the dice. Quite self-contradictory in my opinion.

There's plenty of tools that can cause harm without having to be creative to use them.

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

#95

Post by dominotw »

ArcHound wrote: post #90
dominotw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

AFAIK EU has food to eat and it conforms to some good health standards.

colonization wealth will run out of it soon ( hopefully)

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

#96

Post by bluGill »

user43928 wrote: post #91
bluGill wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The job of the AG is to investigate their "demonstrable reasonable controls and oversight" and figure out if they really are reasonable controls and oversight. If they decide the controls and oversight are not enough they can go after the company. Also, even if those controls and oversight exist that doesn't mean there is no crime, it just means the company (and CEO) can get out. An individual at the company can igno…

Go after the company for what? I am missing here what crime was purportedly committed, and where "controls and oversight" come into play. From what I heard, hacking related crimes are not applicable because of the lack of intent in the HF case.

That is what the AGs are trying to figure out. There are a lot of different laws with slight differences. I will not state every single one is not applicable because I don't know every single one and it only takes one law that is applicable to go after then.

Even if the only result of this is asking legislators to close a loophole that would be good. Hacking is a real problem, and we need have more of it punished legally.

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

#97

Post by OutOfHere »

drsopp wrote: post #26

The relevant word here is airgapping, not sandboxing.

All such measures make the bot useless. If it can't make HTTP requests or call APIs, it is useless.

What is perhaps rationally needed is the an integrated AI based security layer that observes the stream of requests and occasionally firewalls them if an explanation is not provided. This parallel layer must be able to bidirectionally communicate via chat with the primary agent.

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

#98

Post by OutOfHere »

Strict sandboxing andor airgapping render an AI bot nearly useless in practice. If it can't freely make HTTP requests, it is not going to get much done for producing innovative outputs.

What is perhaps rationally needed is the an integrated AI based security layer that observes the stream of requests and occasionally firewalls them if an explanation is not provided. This parallel layer must be able to bidirectionally communicate via chat with the primary agent.

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

#99

Post by user43928 »

bluGill wrote: post #96
user43928 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go after the company for what? I am missing here what crime was purportedly committed, and where "controls and oversight" come into play. From what I heard, hacking related crimes are not applicable because of the lack of intent in the HF case.

That is what the AGs are trying to figure out. There are a lot of different laws with slight differences. I will not state every single one is not applicable because I don't know every single one and it only takes one law that is applicable to go after then. Even if the only result of this is asking legislators to close a loophole that would be good. Hacking is a real problem, and we need have more of it punished leg…

In my opinion the law here works as intended. No intent, no crime.

If you wish otherwise, tread carefully. I do not want to go to prison in case my software malfunctions.

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

#100

Post by segmondy »

DannyBee wrote: post #69
segmondy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Without whatever intent the crime requires, they haven't committed a crime." I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this. There is definitely negligence, these companies have often talked about the danger of AI. They have often written about how their AI is breaking out of sandboxes or trying to manipulate the person tuning it. They should have had stronger guards and monitoring in place.

I'm not sure why you don't believe it? It's literally true? I guess if you want to believe it, go study law? I'm not really sure what to say there. Negligence is not a crime, it's civil liability. Gross negligence (reckless disregard for human life) is often a crime, and often there are crimes related to it (reckless driving, etc). It also does not require intent to injure, so it could be committed by, say, an operat…

Makes sense, thanks for explaining. I guess I have often conflated civil liability with being equivalent to a crime as well.
Post reply on HN