Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dario, Please

pop.rdi.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#141

Post by adventured »

augment_me wrote: post #128
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think lack of regulation is necessarily it. If I build a robot that murders my neighbor, I’m still at fault. We don’t absolve drivers of responsibility because of cruise control. In that sense, AI is nothing new. If it is abused to cause harm, the person behind it should be liable.

If you buy car, someone hacks it, starts it, and drives over someone fully remotely, are you to blame for owning the car? Or the manufacturer? Or the hacker? Or the certification agency for the car security? Or the shell company owning the certification agency? What if a person physically broke into the car and did the same thing? Clearly they are the one to blame then. The whole person in the loop is liable is alrea…

There's nothing new about any of this liability attachment. You're saying these things like they're novel.

If GM does something (or fails to do something) to their vehicle that causes me to crash, they're liable for the crash.

If someone cuts my brake lines (alters my vehicle) and I crash my car and kill someone, the person that cut the lines is responsible. I have to prove the context of course, and or an investigator has to do so.

And the responsible entity may refuse to pay up, may refuse to take responsibility. None of that is new either.

Re: Dario, Please

#142

Post by dvngnt_ »

augment_me wrote: post #128
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think lack of regulation is necessarily it. If I build a robot that murders my neighbor, I’m still at fault. We don’t absolve drivers of responsibility because of cruise control. In that sense, AI is nothing new. If it is abused to cause harm, the person behind it should be liable.

If you buy car, someone hacks it, starts it, and drives over someone fully remotely, are you to blame for owning the car? Or the manufacturer? Or the hacker? Or the certification agency for the car security? Or the shell company owning the certification agency? What if a person physically broke into the car and did the same thing? Clearly they are the one to blame then. The whole person in the loop is liable is alrea…

The hacker will be charged as a criminal as a societal deterrent against weaponizing digital systems. The manufacturer and shell companies could have structural liability if found to be negligent and cutting corners or lacked isolated drive-by-wire controls. It's unlikely that the owner would ever be held liable unless they jailbroke their car disabling security systems.

Re: Dario, Please

#143

Post by [deleted] »

vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

[deleted]

Re: Dario, Please

#144

Post by augment_me »

adventured wrote: post #141
augment_me wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy car, someone hacks it, starts it, and drives over someone fully remotely, are you to blame for owning the car? Or the manufacturer? Or the hacker? Or the certification agency for the car security? Or the shell company owning the certification agency? What if a person physically broke into the car and did the same thing? Clearly they are the one to blame then. The whole person in the loop is liable is alrea…

There's nothing new about any of this liability attachment. You're saying these things like they're novel. If GM does something (or fails to do something) to their vehicle that causes me to crash, they're liable for the crash. If someone cuts my brake lines (alters my vehicle) and I crash my car and kill someone, the person that cut the lines is responsible. I have to prove the context of course, and or an investigat…

Well the difference is that in the software realm, you can attach infinite loops of delegation and ownership at close to no cost, which makes this impossible to investigate conclusively.

Let's say that OpenAI used a shell company that hosts server where an agent spun up another agent on instructions from another agent which was corrupted by bit errors from the inference framework which caused some major hack to happen. Its impossible to investigate in the same way as physical issues. What if the model is open-source, who is responsible then? What if it's open source but another process altered the weights?

Re: Dario, Please

#145

Post by augment_me »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #142
augment_me wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy car, someone hacks it, starts it, and drives over someone fully remotely, are you to blame for owning the car? Or the manufacturer? Or the hacker? Or the certification agency for the car security? Or the shell company owning the certification agency? What if a person physically broke into the car and did the same thing? Clearly they are the one to blame then. The whole person in the loop is liable is alrea…

The hacker will be charged as a criminal as a societal deterrent against weaponizing digital systems. The manufacturer and shell companies could have structural liability if found to be negligent and cutting corners or lacked isolated drive-by-wire controls. It's unlikely that the owner would ever be held liable unless they jailbroke their car disabling security systems.

The hacker was a process that was spawned by some subprocesses that were corrupted by other processes and, etc. Check my other comment... The point is that in the physical realm this is already done by having shell of shell of shell companies to avoid taxes and accountability. In the digital realm this is much much cheaper

Re: Dario, Please

#146

Post by edot »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #109
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this".

Re: Dario, Please

#147

Post by maxgashkov »

zmmmmm wrote: post #81

It would all be more convincing if the incidents so far didn't seem to be facilitated by an outrageous level of negligence. We had OpenAI "accidentally" run an entire swarm of 10,000 agents apparently for weeks, on a security related task, seemingly totally unsupervised, hacking all over the internet - all the conversations were completely visible, anybody who looked would have seen it. But they didn't. So before we…

Look at the post-incident investigation: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...

While I do think OpenAI were negligent in not developing the harness that would allow to understand better what's happening close to realtime, I'd say "anybody who looked" in that case would probably be someone with another swarm tasked with analysis, it's no longer "glanceable" in a traditional sense.

Re: Dario, Please

#148

Post by Aeolun »

edot wrote: post #146
ball_of_lint wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times…

Yeah, so since it’s the CEO’s and their lackeys half determining what laws get to be, we don’t have this kind of laws.

Re: Dario, Please

#149

Post by andai »

> I don’t know what freedom and democracy have to do with AI and the frontier labs. Unless of course Dario is a fan of Neon Genesis Evangelion and dreams of govts run by the three magi. Freedom and democracy for $200 does sound enticing, I won’t lie.

Well, every human will become an ecosystem. Human + 500 agents as advisors. (In the case of important humans, most of them operated by foreign governments and corporations, obviously.)

Re: Dario, Please

#150

Post by soundworlds »

turtletontine wrote: post #139
soundworlds wrote: post #131

> They have shown time and time again that they are not to be trusted, yet, the main ask is to trust us, only us. Exactly. For everyone outside the US, we see a tech industry that has spent 25 years moving fast and breaking things AND elevated Trump to be POTUS - which has destabilized the rest of the world. This is after 70 years of the US invading and destroying small countries, often without plans or robust reason…

If by “we” you mean “experts and professionals outside the US”, I think the short answer is they’re not talking to you here. They’re trying to secure regulatory capture in the US, and monopolize their hold on US corporations. To the extent they’re thinking of other “markets”, I would guess the assume the outsized influence of US corporations will have the much of the rest of the world using their products.

Yeah fair point. I believe he truly has humanity's best interests at heart.. And yet he keeps speaking as though everyone still sees the US as the shining beacon of the world.

That's simply not true anymore, and his messaging will continue to be undermined until he treats other countries as equals (whether that's China, Australia, or anywhere else).

Post reply on HN