Live data from Hacker News

Felony Bench

felonybench.com

211–220 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#211
post #204
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I accidentally a word, which I’m allowed to do but only at the weekend

Re: Felony Bench

#212
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

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explicitly contains "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" qualifications. By definition, you can't accidentally violate the CFAA.

Then who gets prosecuted?

Re: Felony Bench

#213
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

No one. Probably a fine tho and maybe accelerate reguations. Intent is pretty important here so the user would have to prove that they didn't purposely disguise their prompt as non-nefarious which should be easy and then it stops at #2 and face the litmus test as in did you intentionally make a product for nefarious purposes which from your scenario is unlikely. agentic loop going haywire and bringing down some gover…

Yup, I guess I should have added choice 5...

Re: Felony Bench

#214
post #198
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.

To put it another way, crimes are usually [0] only something the government can/must prosecute, victims don't get to choose. The media-popularized phrase "would you like to press charges" isn't asking for your permission, it's asking if you're willing you be helpful.

So HuggingFace's corporate opinion here shouldn't (normatively) matter very much.

[0] "Private right of action" with a civil trial comes close.

Re: Felony Bench

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nos…

Nobody got gored. HuggingFace may have the right to make demands; presumably they have already worked that out with OpenAI privately. Not really our business.

Nothing to see here. Just billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public to jailbreak and use. This could never effect us, not really our business.

Re: Felony Bench

#217
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IANAL, but I think there are three aspects to this which should be teased-apart:

1. Contract terms that require committing a crime are void and unenforceable.

2. "A contract made me do it" is not a defense to a crime.

3. "The victim gave me permission" is not always a defense to a crime.

Re: Felony Bench

#218
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 things companies do to get people's attentions...

Re: Felony Bench

#219
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

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explicitly contains "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" qualifications. By definition, you can't accidentally violate the CFAA.

That might have made sense in a pre-LLM world. People need to recognize the liability of letting an LLM access the internet and act on their behalf, because that liability exists for someone.

Re: Felony Bench

#220
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. As it stands LLMs are not intelligent, they have no agency, they only produce output in response to input. Ultimately this input comes from a human who is an intelligent agent and should be held responsible for the consequences. Humanity has created and tamed many dangerous tools. Creating a fantasy world where LLMs are super intelligent and beyond the control of any mere mortal isn't going to help us build…

You are very far behind the times and must thing agentic loops don't exist, kind of a weird take for the people that have been using them for the last year or two. Much less you haven't spent any time reading the research papers coming out. For example, you tell an AI agent to order a 12 pack of coke and get it shipped to your house. You come back later and find it's hacked into Coca-cola because the local ordering w…

> must thin[k] agentic loops don't exist, kind of a weird take for the people that have been using them for the last year or two

How was their take weird?

LLMs take input and generate output. Agentic loops tells you what it is doing right there in the name. The agent (software, think complex scripts and control flow functions) `loops` the llm output back into llm input until it gets output that it is processable (activates a tool call control flow element). That ruminated (as in cud chewing, not human deep thinking) processable llm output data is moved along as input for tools (more software but ones that actually do the things) that are part of a larger infrastructure of software and may or may not `loop` back over the process some more. The llm is simply a human text generator tool providing randomized data to feed into these tools that were also built for humans and thus take text input.

The initial llm data seed does not spontaneously appear, nor does the software infrastructure that makes it all happen. We have simply automated the human text input part of tool use by building a text generator tool that breaks down all the individual tool calls we would have had to do ourself and gave it a loop.

The greater focus needs to be on better engineering of the surrounding software infrastructure (including network and loops) because without those sticks and stones a bunch of generated words isn't going to be hacking anything, except maybe feelings and the minds of those prone to fantastical flights of fancy.

Post reply on HN