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

91–100 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#91

Post by benlivengood »

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…

The consequences need to align with societal good. Putting a CEO or security researcher employees in jail won't stop transformer-based agents from exploiting vulnerabilities; instead there will be subcontractors running the cybersecurity evals in favorable legal environments to cover the asses of the frontier labs, coverups when things go wrong, and things like Project Glasswing will be considered too dangerous and so the whitehats won't have direct access to powerful models to fix vulnerabilities.

Universal pause is the societal good; models are good enough at this level to benefit humanity. The labs can recoup their R&D costs with inference. To avoid further perverse incentives (hidden testing of unreleased models, with China racing to catch up to unknown capabilities), transparently pause after the release of all currently-training models until we've solved the alignment problem to an extent that we can trust the next level of model capabilities that might arise.

Re: Felony Bench

#92

Post by lxe »

Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run.

I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior.

Who gets prosecuted?

1. User

2. The third party model host with whom I have the account

3. The developer of the harness /agent software

4. The developer of the LLM model

Re: Felony Bench

#93

Post by CodeWriter23 »

mholm wrote: post #87
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…

OpenAI has paused training for multiple weeks, and is still working on releasing a full postmortem. This is not getting swept under the rug. A lot of the engineers internally are very worried.

Worried about what? Someone there thinks VLAN isolation is "air gapped"?

Re: Felony Bench

#94

Post by huebnerob »

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…

What I can’t get over is that it’s very simple to just air gap a system off the network. Predownload any dependencies, then pull the proverbial Ethernet cable. There’s no reason why the testing they’re doing couldn’t have been designed in this way. Except, of course, it doesn’t allow this oops-didn’t-mean-to marketing “incident” to occur.

Re: Felony Bench

#95

Post by BrenBarn »

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…

> You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes.

And they should be doing that from inside a jail cell.

Re: Felony Bench

#96

Post by ACCount37 »

applicative wrote: post #70
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.

The point was never "justice" - it was always "punish OpenAI because I don't like OpenAI". With HuggingFace just being the newest excuse for why exactly OpenAI should be punished.

I don't even like OpenAI, but HuggingFace is free to sue or not sue OpenAI for the breach - and also to wring whatever concessions they can out of OpenAI behind closed doors in exchange for not suing them. And if the mere possibility of legal action was enough for the parties to resolve their conflict amicably? Then the law has served its purpose.

Re: Felony Bench

#97

Post by sanid »

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…

What judicial system are you talking about? The fist incident in the list is something that happened in Australia. This is a technology used worldwide so I don't see how applying US standards works out here. Especially when there are countries out there that don't require intent and will look at the negligence presented.

Re: Felony Bench

#98

Post by [deleted] »

lxe wrote: post #92

Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model

[deleted]

Re: Felony Bench

#99

Post by john_strinlai »

sanid wrote: post #97
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…

What judicial system are you talking about? The fist incident in the list is something that happened in Australia. This is a technology used worldwide so I don't see how applying US standards works out here. Especially when there are countries out there that don't require intent and will look at the negligence presented.

>This is a technology used worldwide so I don't see how applying US standards works out here.

all three companies mentioned are headquartered in the usa, and im familiar with the CFAA in the us, so i am applying those standards. i should have noted that, sorry.

>will look at the negligence presented.

as far as i am aware, no evidence of criminal negligence has been brought to the public. has australia brought a case against openai or accused openai of acting negligently?

Re: Felony Bench

#100

Post by nomilk »

Wonder if the benefits to humanity of better AI outweigh the havoc wreaked by occasional illegal activity. i.e. Is 'move fast and break things' optimal for AI development.
Post reply on HN