111–120 of 129 posts
Iowa asks? Why don't they just open a criminal investigation related to the hacking of HuggingFace?
Brenna Bird cares more about publicity than action.
> 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.)
It's Brenna Bird, so.
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???
"A failure to take immediate action to preserve such materials could result in spoliation sanctions if litigation were to ensue."
Has OpenAI now been advised of potential litigation
Will OpenAI now fail to preserve potential evidence
That's what Google did. Three different federal judges called it out
Donato
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/judge-google-deleted...
Mehta
https://nypost.com/2024/05/03/business/google-blasted-as-neg...
Brinkema
https://nypost.com/2024/08/29/business/judge-blasts-google-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who bears the responsibility in a hypotethical scenario when a self-driving rideshare vehicle, without a human driver, god-forbid, hits a pedestrian?
Some states have autonomous vehicle statutes and some don't. Let's assume the case none of them do, since it sounds like you are asking about "what would happen in the case this isn't specifically answered by a statute". In that case, the short answer is: Criminal liability - you could only really charge crimes that don't require specific intent. Reckless driving is an example. You could charge the company since they…
I would argue that new laws are absolutely needed.
USA laws are more directed towards helping companies and hurting individuals. Example of bankruptcy is a good one. Companies can shed more liability where individuals retain it after bankruptcy.
Civil liability is only viable if one has the funds to take action. This creates a David vs Goliath scenario were Goliath has an army behind them. Only method to remedy this would to change / pass a law that the party which loses must pain all court costs. It creates a level playing field for actual action against big business. I believe the UK has something like this in place.
Criminal liability is a joke when it comes to big business. They will bake the cost of fines as the cost of doing business. Make $1,000,000 braking the law and only pay a $1,000 fine results in $999,000 profit. Something like three strikes and the CEO, top executives, and three primary share holders go to jail while forcing the company to dissolve seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors in corporate settings.
Our current laws protect corporations and bad actors, with-in them, while harming the victims.
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???
"To ensure the integrity of our Offices review, we ask that OpenAI take immediate steps to preserve all potentially relevant documents, data, and information." "A failure to take immediate action to preserve such materials could result in spoliation sanctions if litigation were to ensue." Has OpenAI now been advised of potential litigation Will OpenAI now fail to preserve potential evidence That's what Google did. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Generally, yes, sandboxing would be a defense, because criminal negligence (again, it's state specific, so this is a law-school-level generalization) requires "gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care". So a mistake in judging the kind of sandbox or isolation you need would not be criminal negligence unless that mistake fell into the above category. I can't think of a case where it would or has - courts h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense, thanks for explaining. I guess I have often conflated civil liability with being equivalent to a crime as well.
I think a lot of us who aren’t lawyers equate “breaking the law” with “criminal behavior”, which implies a crime. But if course lawyers gonna lawyer so that hair has been split very finely & repeatedly over time. Feels like the difference between the vernacular and the letter of the law to me?
So I suppose we need to find out who is responsible for actions taken by AI. The model creator? The harness creator? The executor? What if a non technical person downloads an AI model and a harness, runs it locally and the AI goes out and breaks the law? I suppose it could vary, like a car. A car manufacturer makes a fault car and the brake fails and kills someone, they are liable. The car is okay and the driver is not paying attention and kills someone, the driver is.
Can we please enforce existing laws? Maybe AI and robotics, and get rid of all the lawyers.
The job of lawyers is to enforce the existing laws. (well they are a part of the enforcement, there are lots of other parts)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who bears the responsibility in a hypotethical scenario when a self-driving rideshare vehicle, without a human driver, god-forbid, hits a pedestrian?
Some states have autonomous vehicle statutes and some don't. Let's assume the case none of them do, since it sounds like you are asking about "what would happen in the case this isn't specifically answered by a statute". In that case, the short answer is: Criminal liability - you could only really charge crimes that don't require specific intent. Reckless driving is an example. You could charge the company since they…