341–350 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure? What if I painted the image , but happen to have a photo realistic capabilities ?
Ignorance of the crime isn't excused BTW. You do have a flake chatbot to ask the law about
It’s more complicated than what is being touted as fact.
In most jurisdictions creation is legal, it’s publishing them that is not. In some jurisdictions threatening to publish them is also illegal. Most jurisdictions that have a creation policy apply to doing deepfakes they sexualize minors, which likely would have been illegal to possess under other laws.
Then we have a consent issue. Creating and publishing them could be entirely legal if the subject consents to such.
So yah. It’s not “deep fakes are illegal, let’s arrest everybody !!!”
To be clear, creation is likely legal, publishing not so much.
Additionally, intent is important with regard to AI hacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure: if you know that LLMs are prone to crime, using them and not checking in enough to trigger 'knowingly' might be gross negligence?
In the scale of mental states in crime, negligence of any kind is several steps below knowing/intentional; you can't be liable for an intentional crime because of mere negligence of any degree. You could be liable for the (civil) tort of negligence, though.
These are just cases of AI models committing illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. If that's the logic, how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? Edit: I get that this is about agents, but a lot of these instances are about agents going rogue after the human gave them a task. "inadvertently" breaking the law isn't necessarily a lesser category than "did so on command." If we are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s most likely you’re right, but I’m the weirdo who thinks there’s actually a non-zero probability that there was negative intent and that the “accidental” aspect is a form of damage control. If someone broke into my house but then claimed they didn’t mean to when they saw I was home, I’m not sure I’d take them at their word.
You think that a training run in a VM that was set up with access only to an internal package repository was intended to hack said repository to then go on and hack HF? All so that OpenAI could do a bit of bragging and massively delay their own work and planned model rollouts? That seems extremely unlikely.
Was it really a training run in a VM? Was it really only intended to touch an internal repository? How do we/HF know and verify that?
I agree with you that it’s unlikely, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Corporations have intentionally committed felonies many times.
A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore a computer must never commit a felony.
We need to set a precedent for holding shareholders accountable. I could go to jail if my dog hurts somebody, it should be no different with a company.
The shareholders give all authority over actions and property of the company to the executives. I believe that one classical way to frame this is that the shareholders have the "beneficial ownership" but not the "legal ownership". Another framing is that shareholders have "ownership" but not "control".
People can't be held responsible for things they didn't choose to do, didn't set in motion, didn't plan or enable, &c, &c.
There are a lot of people out there who want to make the world a better place. It is really necessary for such people to understand institutions at a moderately deep level -- we can't improve governance if we don't understand the first thing about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there is more to be learned by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it. I'm sure we could learn a ton about infectious diseases by designing new ones and unleashing them on the world, but there are very good reasons why we don't. Most of the benefits could have been gained from a network isolated from the internet. OAI could have deployed servers to exploit and me…
>by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it Then you're on the side of AI saftey that is telling everyone to shut down the LLMs now and stop further development on them, right? If you're not your position is hypocritical or ignorant. There is no safe LLM. There is no way to exhaustively prove an LLM is safe. These are unsolved problems in AI safety, and at any moment the ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think that a training run in a VM that was set up with access only to an internal package repository was intended to hack said repository to then go on and hack HF? All so that OpenAI could do a bit of bragging and massively delay their own work and planned model rollouts? That seems extremely unlikely.
That’s all dependent on believing the premise of the story given by OpenAI. Was it really a training run in a VM? Was it really only intended to touch an internal repository? How do we/HF know and verify that? I agree with you that it’s unlikely, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Corporations have intentionally committed felonies many times.
Considering that there would be no clear benefit to such criminal behavior, in my opinion "unlikely" is putting it mildly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to set a precedent for holding shareholders accountable. I could go to jail if my dog hurts somebody, it should be no different with a company.
Shareholders can't be held accountable because they can neither initiate nor prevent actions of the company. That is an essential part of the bargain -- it protects the shareholders from each other and makes public ownership of companies possible. They "own the company" but can't actually go on the premises, use the printer paper, drink the coffee, drive the fleet vehicles, &c. The shareholders give all authority ove…
Who picks the executives? Who fires them when they misbehave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it is the gun they make that is itself responsible, yes. See Sig Sauer P320 malfunction or lawsuits[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits
There are known standards for how a gun should perform. This probably wouldn't go the same for LLMs, since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable.
"anyone" is doing a lot of work there, also what is "a serious manner"? There are plenty of people who use it quite a lot and end up in a mental health crisis, sometimes from trying to use it to solve a mental health crisis; or find themselves in something equivalent to people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes and all the fallout that causes in their lives.
You may understand why it is not a good idea to use them that way, I may too, but I think you underestimate the general populations (outside HN) misunderstanding of LLMs, especially in light of the marketing stunts these companies themselves pull.