Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#2These things are very much weapons. Imagine a collection of data centers, pointed at an adversary.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#3Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#4Sort of like how we treat pitbulls perhaps? It’s not the itty bitty GPT-5.6 Astra that did the hacking. It’s the owner who didn’t train it well! Poor model so sad, we should give it a nice open space and all the GPUs it wants to do what it wants.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#5> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame.
Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#6I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#7Sort of like how we treat pitbulls perhaps? It’s not the itty bitty GPT-5.6 Astra that did the hacking. It’s the owner who didn’t train it well! Poor model so sad, we should give it a nice open space and all the GPUs it wants to do what it wants.
Do we hold metasploit accountable when it leads to a hack? Why do we absolve the human actor in the case of AI?
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#8I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.
The [Company] is aware they were hacked and your data stolen and your account details sold.
The [Company] apologizes.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#9I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.
The [Company] is aware they were hacked and your data stolen and your account details sold. The [Company] apologizes.
The best is that the article frames it as "Autonomous hacking is here. Governments are not ready". As if someone didn't authorizing turning the damn thing on.
> TO LOSE CONTROL of one artificial intelligence may be regarded as misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. Lose four, and people may start to wonder whether the problem lies with AI itself.
No fingers pointed at the company, just the "AI". Funny how that works.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#10They were surely prompted to do these things.