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

201–210 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#201

Post by lobf »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #179
gpt5 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get the sentiment of classifying it as a felony. OpenAI’s model found security breaches in HugginFace’s system (it wasn’t even OpenAI running it, as it was a 3rd party evaluation company that didn’t secure it well). OpenAI collaborated with HuggingFace to resolve the issues when they found out about it, and publicly disclosed everything to raise awareness. This is how things should work. These models are very…

Really? Dudes are catching felony raps for web scraping and you dont see how any of this is felonious?

Who got charged with a felony for scraping?

Re: Felony Bench

#202

Post by usef- »

bastawhiz wrote: post #19

Well it's not a benchmark, and it's not really representative of...anything except volume of research and what gets publicized. This mostly just measures how much testing each company does on models with relaxed guardrails and then talks about it. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion you can draw from that. Meta might have the most evil models but if they're piddling around not testing it, they won't ever find themse…

Exactly. It currently seems to be a ranking of how much safety testing each company does. It's also only ever going to be the companies that publicly disclose it happening. (in the case of hugging face, OAI's hamd was forced to disclose)

There's a good way and a two worse ways that companies could optimise this benchmark.

Re: Felony Bench

#203

Post by Fricken »

9dev wrote: post #198
gpt5 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get the sentiment of classifying it as a felony. OpenAI’s model found security breaches in HugginFace’s system (it wasn’t even OpenAI running it, as it was a 3rd party evaluation company that didn’t secure it well). OpenAI collaborated with HuggingFace to resolve the issues when they found out about it, and publicly disclosed everything to raise awareness. This is how things should work. These models are very…

Luckily, that isn't how the law works. Or is supposed to work, anyway. You cannot, for example, sell yourself as a slave to somebody else, because slavery is illegal - even if you opt into it. So whether something is a felony isn't decided by the victim, but the rules of law, and that means breaching a security system without authorization is illegal, no matter what you think.

I could show up at your doorstep, declare myself at your service, and then spend the rest of my days catering to your every beck and whim. There's no law against that. Can it even be slavery if it's voluntary?

Re: Felony Bench

#204

Post by pests »

getoj wrote: post #197
btown wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting question about intent and mens rea here, from a legal perspective. Can an AI model intend harm? Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? And does anybody at HuggingFace, OpenAI, or the government actually want there to be a settled answer/precedent to these questions - much less an entire r…

I’m a lawyer (but not your lawyer, not this kind of lawyer and not in your jurisdiction). Based on what I can recall from law school: > Can an AI model intend harm? No. The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages. > Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? Absolute…

> but your lawyer

Uh oh?

Re: Felony Bench

#207

Post by gitpusher »

fluidcruft wrote: post #45
bushido wrote: post #38

To some extent, I feel like the amount of credit given to the jailbreak/hack from OpenAI->Hugginface is too much, Not from the impact, it was very impactful of an event, But how it happened. It really is that these models have been trained, or maybe even over-trained, to save memories, and to a very far extend, this thing that they're calling communication is just the function of it saving memories. To be honest, if…

You can disable claude-code's memories both at a repo level and in user settings. I have this in ~/.claude/settings.json "autoMemoryEnabled": false, (Claude fixed this for me after I chewed it out for being annoying by constantly pulling up outdated memories which is compounded by the fact that I develop in four accounts on two computers and dealing with edit wars related to inconsistent memories is not fun)

Regarding your cross-computer situation: I track my memory files in source control. This helps to keep them in sync across different machines. But the main benefit is making those files more transparent and easy for me to modify directly. So no funny business regarding memories or context I'm not aware about.

Re: Felony Bench

#208

Post by preg_match »

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 CFAA is one of the most inconsistently applied laws. We basically only bust it out as a last resort to ruin someone’s life. Companies can de-facto write and distribute malware and nobody cares.

But, make no mistake. If you do the same and anger the government, they will use the CFAA to give you life in prison. It’s like Russian roulette, it’s completely random when they bring it down.

Re: Felony Bench

#209

Post by cobbzilla »

getoj wrote: post #197
btown wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting question about intent and mens rea here, from a legal perspective. Can an AI model intend harm? Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? And does anybody at HuggingFace, OpenAI, or the government actually want there to be a settled answer/precedent to these questions - much less an entire r…

I’m a lawyer (but not your lawyer, not this kind of lawyer and not in your jurisdiction). Based on what I can recall from law school: > Can an AI model intend harm? No. The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages. > Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? Absolute…

> The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages.

I can think of a couple of counter examples:

Civil asset forfeiture: your property is charged with the crime, you have to petition the government to get it back or else they sell it at auction.

Similar: When products deemed unsafe are ordered to be destroyed; it’s the same end effect as the deodand although liability sits with the manufacturer.

Re: Felony Bench

#210

Post by 9dev »

Fricken wrote: post #203
9dev wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, that isn't how the law works. Or is supposed to work, anyway. You cannot, for example, sell yourself as a slave to somebody else, because slavery is illegal - even if you opt into it. So whether something is a felony isn't decided by the victim, but the rules of law, and that means breaching a security system without authorization is illegal, no matter what you think.

I could show up at your doorstep, declare myself at your service, and then spend the rest of my days catering to your every beck and whim. There's no law against that. Can it even be slavery if it's voluntary?

That's not slavery, because you only declare yourself at my service, but you never sign a contract giving your rights away in exchange for something. That's the part you cannot do, regardless of whether it's voluntary.
Post reply on HN