231–240 of 610 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Oh, you can, no problem. But you’re also wrong , and getting downvoted because of it.
No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.
Why don't we hold the companies launching AI agents to the same standard? They would be more responsible if there were some serious consequences beyond just bad PR.
> The agents clearly regarded what they were doing as hacking. To butcher the quote about Oracle: Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising LLMs. You need to think of LLMs the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower clearly regarded what they were doi…
Whether or not this particular incident was OpenAI it seems the threshold for blame seems pretty low, judging by the 'An OpenAI agent swarm was responsible for this incident' section. The timeline is more compelling though. Malware in the past has variously added red herrings to throw researchers off the scent or even deliberately try to masquerade as originating from elsewhere. In this case adding `oai` as a package…
Where are the web server access logs with source IP addresses and timestamps?
That's the kind of evidence that is needed to go to a provider's abuse department or sue to unmask the user behind a given IP, not attacker controlled (and falsifiable) strings.
> Our understanding from talking to people in the RubyGems community is that OpenAI never informed them that they were responsible for this attack. I really hope that's not the case, because if it is there are two options, both of them bad: 1. After the Hugging Face and Wiki attacks OpenAI were still unable to review their previous logs and determine that they had previously attacked RubyGems. 2. They knew about the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. The question is intent for what. If somebody drugged you without your knowledge and you were charged with a DUI, you would have a defense--no intent to become intoxicated. The strict liability means once you choose to become intoxicated, you're liable for driving intoxicated, even if in some other context your in…
Are you a lawyer? Fairly certain that the entire point of strict liability is that mens rea is not required for certain crimes. As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.
Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind.
I find it to be a reasonable take. If you're accidentally going 100 in a 70 (which is a misdemeanor in california), you're not being a careful enough driver, and we deem that lack of care criminal.
> The agents clearly regarded what they were doing as hacking. To butcher the quote about Oracle: Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising LLMs. You need to think of LLMs the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower clearly regarded what they were doi…
Someone started that lawnmower and pointed it your direction. Why shouldn't they be responsible when the lawnmower runs over your foot and cuts it off?
> The agents clearly regarded what they were doing as hacking. To butcher the quote about Oracle: Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising LLMs. You need to think of LLMs the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower clearly regarded what they were doi…
I agree. I think it also explains their behavior such as randomly wiping stuff from disk. There simply aren't any repercussions for this in their training envs.
It's also not like a child or a pet animal where you can try to teach it to learn from the experience. LLMs are not "intelligent", they just use language in a way that appears intelligent. They can't learn or develop ethics in the same way that we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, why there's no accountability? Even if there's no intent, it's still a cyber attack.
Who could possibly hold them accountable?
A state coalition extracted $17B from Meta earlier this year, so consequences can happen, although our legal system moves very slowly.