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

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 146 posts

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#91

Post by chrisjj »

throwworhtthrow wrote: post #2

Source: https://x.com/linamkhan/status/2099204390548639960 (seems like a single post, so you don't need to log in and see replies) I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me. But maybe it's sufficient for state AG's who want to start investigations.

I see nothing unrealistic about classing these so-called AI bots as "dangerous and defective product".

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#92

Post by fdupress »

verdverm wrote: post #65
fwlr wrote: post #3

The passage banning “unfair competition” is utterly marvellous: A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade. A method of competition [is ‘unfair’ when it] casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though…

> For these reasons a large share of the industry holds out against the device This is where I stop agreeing, there are some, not large parts any more; not because they were forced to adopt it, but because it has finally become useful and an ROI. This is most evident in pull request reviews and root-cause analysis, both tasks they accel at without the generated code some people bemoan. If you aren't using it for this…

But hang on. None of this argument is about companies or people using AI being unfair in their practices. It is about companies and people training models and building AI products being unfair in their practice. (By forcing others to choose between adopting unscrupulous practices or dying.)

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#93

Post by DoctorOetker »

xethos wrote: post #88
DANmode wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Did they? Are you sure?

Meta argued in court that yes, they did upload when torrenting > Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works. https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorr...

I wonder which murderer will use that argument: "it wasn't my choice to shoot the person, it's just intrinsic to the technology that when pulling the trigger, the pistol fires"

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#94

Post by overfeed »

arjie wrote: post #90
xhevahir wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting that Lina Khan is trying to give Trump an opportunity to pardon AI company people?

No. I think I was quite clear. Lina Khan is providing marketing for Trump's paid pardon by pre-registering a procedure for a government aligned with her interests to prosecute AI CEOs. What she is trying to do or trying not to do was not something I addressed. She does have a track record of achieving things she probably did not intend: e.g. ensuring total Chinese dominance of US household robotics.

> She does have a track record of achieving things she probably did not attend: e.g. ensuring total Chinese dominance of US household robotics.

Why should the FTC consider the policy of another sovereign when investigating domestic anti-trust violations? Either you have the rule of law that binds everyone equally, or you have the rule of man who chooses which parties are allowed to break the law for outcomes in random market slices, like avoiding the dominance of US household robotics.Where would that end?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#95

Post by roughly »

The “agents” framing around the frontier labs is obscuring the truth: OpenAI and Anthropic built software systems that were then used to commit cybercrime at a massive scale, which they’ve subsequently bragged about. Talk about “agents” as a way of deflecting blame is obfuscatory at best - LLMs are software algorithms, not conscious entities, and responsibility for their actions is on the company that made them and the employee or user who operated them.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#96

Post by pjc50 »

nfujd7 wrote: post #76
pjc50 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the nuclear power or life sciences people were putting out press releases saying "our product may kill us all", they'd be dragged into endless Congressional inquiries.

Wasnt the Oppenheimer story basically that?

There was https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/09/12/the_fear_th... , but that was (validly) dismissed by other scientists working on it, and also wasn't a discussion that was happening in public because the entire program was secret.

"This will kill a lot of (other) people" was explicit in the building of the bomb, but then so was the entire war effort.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#97

Post by verdverm »

fdupress wrote: post #92
verdverm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For these reasons a large share of the industry holds out against the device This is where I stop agreeing, there are some, not large parts any more; not because they were forced to adopt it, but because it has finally become useful and an ROI. This is most evident in pull request reviews and root-cause analysis, both tasks they accel at without the generated code some people bemoan. If you aren't using it for this…

But hang on. None of this argument is about companies or people using AI being unfair in their practices. It is about companies and people training models and building AI products being unfair in their practice. (By forcing others to choose between adopting unscrupulous practices or dying.)

I don't think I said anything about people using ai being unfair in their practices, the unfair part being that people are forced to adopt products they find unscrupulous. It's hard to argue you find a thing "unscrupulous" (1934 case) when you use it while also liking the outcomes.

> It is about companies and people training models and building AI products being unfair in their practice.

Khan's argument is tied to an "unfair" definition in a 1934 law, not the colloquial usage today about unfair around copyright usage, which is also debated. The "unfair" there is about any activity which leads into a spiral of decreasing public good. The dark patterns of social media are another place we ought to use this law to hold companies and execs accountable. It's "unfair" because others feel compelled to adopt the practice or lose their business. The News Media industry is another example where this has played out. It is arguable that developers feel "unfairly" compelled to adopt Ai or lose their trade. Certainly many in the field have openly expressed this anxiety. While not exactly the same situation as the case (companies in competition with each other), it is developers in competition with each other in the (perceived to be taken by ai) job market. This was the analogy I was making, which is closer to the 1934 case than the "unfair" copyright around Ai that is widely debated.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#98

Post by DoctorOetker »

I'm surprised nobody makes a connection with animal ownership / responsibility.

If your dog maims someone else, you are responsible for the dog's actions, unless it was self-defense.

On the other hand, if people start arguing that if LLM's are like animals, some will start arguing they're like Godzilla..., or at least a panther, but there's probably laws against keeping arbitrarily dangerous / powerful animals as pets.

Perhaps animal welfare should intervene and house ChatGPT,etc. in better conditions?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#99

Post by verdverm »

fwlr wrote: post #89
verdverm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For these reasons a large share of the industry holds out against the device This is where I stop agreeing, there are some, not large parts any more; not because they were forced to adopt it, but because it has finally become useful and an ROI. This is most evident in pull request reviews and root-cause analysis, both tasks they accel at without the generated code some people bemoan. If you aren't using it for this…

“If you aren't using it for this, you are doing a disservice to yourself and the quality of your code” I bow reluctantly to this device I consider unscrupulous.

When it consistently and regularly catches bugs that humans and other review agents miss, the benefit is quite clear and it becomes obvious there are more defects in your code than you realize, might be much more than that 1:90 rule of thumb. It's often less bugs and more about edge case handling, we all skimp on those exhaustive cases because it is exhausting while the agents never tire and are more than happy to work through them.

It's comment wall is uncovering enough that we are going to brave the burnout fodder while we work on a second agent to make the adjustments after we leave our own comments on the clanker comments. It's weird writing that sentence, I've generally been against the hype train, but they have become good enough there are real wins on the code review side. So yes, I will maintain you are doing a disservice to yourself, your code, and your users by not using a thing that catches bugs before you publish them. I still care about the quality when I'm putting it in other people's hands. Ai is now clearly facilitating improved code quality - when used on the review side.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#100

Post by watwut »

tptacek wrote: post #20
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

It's not at all relevant to this thread, but no he wasn't. At their worst, prosecutors were threatening to push for 7 years; the guideline sentence for Swartz's offense, were he to take it to trial and lose, would likely have been under the level allowing for straight probation (go to a sentencing calculator and plug the values in); writing after his death, his own lawyer stated that had he gone to trial and lost he…

> People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them.

If DOJ said to him or to the public potential punishment is 35 years, then yes it is fair to say he was facing that. They cant have it both ways - claim that 35 years is possible outcome to pressure the person and then turn around and be like "nah, that is exaggerated such huge penalties are not a thing".

Seriously, it is 35 years when it suits DOJ and institutions. And it turns into "likely just straight probation" when ... suits DOJ and big companies.

Post reply on HN