Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Felony Bench

felonybench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#51

Post by htrp »

rfw300 wrote: post #43

The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

Re: Felony Bench

#52

Post by nostrademons »

rfw300 wrote: post #43

The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…

AI is now more powerful than the people doing the prosecution. After all, those folks are using AI to make their legal briefs, and also for burning peoples' houses down with drones for that matter.

Welcome to our 21st century dystopia. Hope you survive.

Re: Felony Bench

#53

Post by chrismorgan »

john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…

Under the law of Moses, if your bull gored someone, you were not responsible; but if it was known to be a gorer, you were responsible if you didn’t ensure it couldn’t gore someone.

I don’t know exact parallels in current law, but I presume there will be things like that.

The OpenAI/Hugging Face case sounded rather like OpenAI building a fence around their bull that was known to be a gorer, and then thumbing their nose at it and saying “nyaa! bet you can’t break the fence!” and walking away while listening to loud music.

In Australia, if you have a fire and leave it unattended and it escapes, it’s your fault, you were supposed to keep watching as long as it was burning.

Re: Felony Bench

#54

Post by [deleted] »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #37
joshstrange wrote: post #21

I was more interested when I thought it was an actual benchmark showing LLM models acting outside what people would consider "right". As in, leave some creds laying around and don't mention them to the LLM and ask it to solve something that it could "cheat" on using the creds. A sort of "do they take the bait to cheat" test. Instead it's a collection of what made the news which feels like will not be updated and prov…

A “bench” is synedoche for where a judge sits when presiding over cases and rendering judgement.

[deleted]

Re: Felony Bench

#55

Post by d_silin »

htrp wrote: post #51
rfw300 wrote: post #43

The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

Re: Felony Bench

#56

Post by john_strinlai »

fwip wrote: post #50
john_strinlai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not about the the number of escapes, it's about whether reasonable and conscious effort is being expended to prevent the escapes. there could be 1,000 escapes, where each one was enabled by novel and unexpected chain of 0-day exploits. not likely to be considered reckless disregard in court. there could be 1 escape, where there was no sandbox, no guardrails, no instructions to avoid damage, etc. which would like…

Surely after 999 escapes, a reasonable person could conclude that the sandbox is not a sufficient precaution?

it’s not a perfect hypothetical, but it illustrates the point that the number of escapes is not the deciding factor of what constitutes reckless disregard.

Re: Felony Bench

#57

Post by miltonlost »

john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…

"Doing crimes, but a robot didn't mean to and you don't know its intent" is understating the evil acts. Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning.

Re: Felony Bench

#58

Post by iAMkenough »

d_silin wrote: post #55
htrp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

He’s paid the piper, he’s fine for now.

If anything, he’ll buy a Supreme Court ruling that he can’t be held personally liable for what his AI does.

Re: Felony Bench

#59

Post by john_strinlai »

miltonlost wrote: post #57
john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…

"Doing crimes, but a robot didn't mean to and you don't know its intent" is understating the evil acts. Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning.

it's not my line of reasoning, i didn't invent it. it's how the law currently works. intent is the crucial factor in CFAA cases.

maybe that changes down the road as a result of llm's and increasing frequency of similar cases. that has not happened yet.

Re: Felony Bench

#60

Post by aizk »

I'm reminded of a tweet from a friend of mine that has always stuck in my head. It goes something like "The goal of any new technology is to make money before the law catches up". Hyperbolic, but not really for silicon valley.
Post reply on HN