121–129 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say that same exact thing for the entire Industrial Revolution, but that doesn't mean we are going to destroy the looms even though some tried unsuccessfully.
Ok and? We can do better this time but let’s just not so the capitalists can crush normal people yet again?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime. Never did and never will. Shouldn't, either. And companies always try to pretend someone out there is worse and garner fake sympathy. OpenAI blew up the memory market and made tech inaccessible. The downstream effects of that are immeasurably massive and will have real consequences. It could even result in medical devices becoming too expensive for people. I don't ca…
> OpenAI blew up the memory market and made tech inaccessible This is not a "crime", has nothing to do with this incident, and simply confirms what I am saying about people using these events as an outlet for their anger at AI companies, as opposed to any rational reasoning about industrywide security negligence. I could almost respect a viewpoint that says "we should punish companies for security negligence, startin…
People who claim those things always develop moral compasses when it's too late after their/your employer fires them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
There's a lawyer in this thread explaining that quite likely a crime was not committed, because intent matters quite a lot in criminal law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Addressed in my other replies
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…