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

61–70 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#61

Post by wat10000 »

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…

In retrospect, all the angst around the AI-Box experiment was hilarious. If a superintelligent AI is confined in a box and can only communicate through text, could it talk its way to freedom? Not only is the answer clearly "yes" but it's not even hard. The AI won't even have to try, it'll be gifted an internet connection and a full suite of tools before it even bothers to ask.

We'd all better hope that superintelligent AI either never happens, or that the first one is friendly, because we don't stand a chance against one that's malicious.

Re: Felony Bench

#62

Post by wbl »

lokar wrote: post #9
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…

Can’t gross negligence or indifference to consequences lead to a felony?

Mens rea requirements are per crime and can vary wildly. Its difference between murder and manslaughter. The CFAA requires knowingly which is tough to prove.

Re: Felony Bench

#63

Post by solid_fuel »

iAMkenough wrote: post #58
d_silin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m sure Thomas needs an upgraded RV, so that’s easily handled. And the rest of the conservative ‘justices’ seem happy to betray the constitution for free.

Re: Felony Bench

#64

Post by applicative »

We only know about the OG Alibaba ROME crypto-mining incident because they wrote a paper about it. Many diseases seem to spike where there are a lot of doctors to test; crime and corruption are always rife where ... there's a free press.

Re: Felony Bench

#65

Post by user43928 »

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

Is has nothing to do with copyright.

I understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here.

An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant.

So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.

Re: Felony Bench

#66

Post by lokar »

john_strinlai wrote: post #22
lokar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?

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…

Are you sure? At some point a reasonable person would conclude that this activity can’t be conducted safely.

Re: Felony Bench

#68

Post by idle_zealot »

nostrademons wrote: post #52
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.

It's not that "AI" is too powerful because bad prosecutors use fucking ChatGPT to write their briefs. It's that there's too much investment wrapped up in the technology for it to be challenged. Same reason Flock won't be held accountable for mass stalking, or we never hold our commanders-in-chief responsible for war crimes. If you're sufficiently powerful then the law is a battlefield between you and other powerful entities to slug it out, not a set of binding principles that apply as written. There are no meaningful powers that want OpenAI punished, so it won't happen. The law and Constitution will be reinterpreted to make it so.

Re: Felony Bench

#69

Post by 317070 »

wat10000 wrote: post #61
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…

In retrospect, all the angst around the AI-Box experiment was hilarious. If a superintelligent AI is confined in a box and can only communicate through text, could it talk its way to freedom? Not only is the answer clearly "yes" but it's not even hard. The AI won't even have to try, it'll be gifted an internet connection and a full suite of tools before it even bothers to ask. We'd all better hope that superintellige…

I like how AI safety expert Robert Miles put it. [0]

So much effort was spend on philosophizing whether a safe enough sandbox would exist. But that was obviously irrelevant as in hindsight it should have been obvious we were never going to use one.

[0] https://youtube.com/shorts/XnnjvIqf4fU?si=MxuPlR3hjxAgjx5_

Re: Felony Bench

#70

Post by applicative »

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…

It is a standard symptom of moralism that where the object of rage has /wronged another/, one takes no interest in the will, act or opinion of the party wronged.

The response of Hugging Face, which is actually very well known, is nowhere mentioned above, but it decides basically every single moral and legal detail of the matter.

Post reply on HN