21–30 of 66 posts
I 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.
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you going to figure that out? You can’t capture an agent in a jar and convince it to confess. As we saw with the HF incident, even highly sophisticated actors need a good chunk of time and manpower to trace these things. And I suspect the folks who are going to have the most success with LLM-powered cybercrime are going to know how to cover their tracks reasonably well.
"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
I 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.
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
it makes you wonder did the developers intentionally add vulnerability exploitation as a feature so they can use it against their competitors or anyone else
"The law in America relies on intentionality, notes Rune Kvist, head of Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company, which insures AI firms. If no human intended to hack anyone, no crime can have happened. The ability to sue for damages is limited too." This is sloppy. Criminal negligence exists (although some crimes do require intent). And civil tort certainly doesn't require intent.
I 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.
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.
Demand ai cleaners that are capable of being held accountable, or accept the risk you choose. Or just clean your own house.
I 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.
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.