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

121–130 of 146 posts

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

#121

Post by gruez »

crote wrote: post #44
gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Okay, and? If anything, the Swartz case was even more direct fair use. There's very little to use JSTOR for which isn't some form of teaching, scholarship, or research! Clearly the fact that the end-use is (possibly) fair use isn't the only thing that matters.

>There's very little to use JSTOR for which isn't some form of teaching, scholarship, or research!

He wasn't prosecuted for copyright infringement though.

>... was prosecuted for multiple violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz

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

#123

Post by true_religion »

hypercube33 wrote: post #113
illwrks wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, that isn’t true of all pets. It doesn’t apply to cats for example. I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal. “Cat owners are generally not responsib…

That's a highly weird law. Someone let the cat outside or feeds/keeps it there thus should accept the way cats are as their responsibility.

It’s more that society accepts that cats are part of it, and considers that people should adapt to cat behavior patterns rather than we not having any free roaming cats.

It’s a deliberate choice to treat pets the same as non pets.

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

#124

Post by DoctorOetker »

illwrks wrote: post #109
DoctorOetker wrote: post #98

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 pet…

While I agree, that isn’t true of all pets. It doesn’t apply to cats for example. I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal. “Cat owners are generally not responsib…

Just for contrast I repeat your quoted paragraph with AI

“AI owners are generally not responsible for the 'normal' behaviour of AIs because the law accepts that AIs tend to penetrate victim computer systems and have instincts which, for example, lead them to prey on professions and benchmark datasets. So AI owners should be reassured that the simple fact of their AI penetrating peer networks would not make them responsible if, for example, the AI kills a discipline or profession, urinates heat into the environment, or creates dependencies on foregin oil. These would be 'normal' AI behaviours that would be expected”

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

#125

Post by whateveracct »

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...

constantly using tech to launder responsibility. it's disgusting, really.

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

#126

Post by tptacek »

watwut wrote: post #118
tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other problems with this argument you have the fact that DOJ doesn't decide sentences.

Overwhelming majory of senteces comes from plea deal. And threat of large punishment of you dont sign is major driver there. So, we are really getting back to DOJ wants sentences to look super huge so you sign a deal ... but when it is politically inconvenient they suddenly get small.

Swartz had extremely good lawyers at both the beginning and the end of this case and was exactly the kind of nerd to have read the sentencing guidelines himself. And, once again: the DOJ doesn't set sentences, the judge does.

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

#127

Post by stale2002 »

NewJazz wrote: post #71
stale2002 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the goal of government policy is to help consumers, thats why.

No, it is to help all citizens. Even those who are not a party to a particular market.

But really helping consumers is one of the biggest goals here.

In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reason to believe that its a short term low that will lead to long term high prices .

But other than that, lower prices is almost definitionally good in our existing monopoly law interpretations.

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

#128

Post by WalterBright »

anonymous_user9 wrote: post #56
WalterBright wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running a business is a rude awakening for anyone who hasn't done it. Like a ballet critic who has never taken a ballet class. Or a commander who has never been shot at. Or a sailor who has never been at sea. Mayors Katie Wilson and Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows. How can one regulate a business without ever being in the trenches?

> Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows. In record-high approval ratings, multiple reforms supported by small businesses, and fast progress on many huge initiatives?

What happened to the free busses? And his unsustainable budget?

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

#129

Post by NewJazz »

stale2002 wrote: post #127
NewJazz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is to help all citizens. Even those who are not a party to a particular market.

But really helping consumers is one of the biggest goals here. In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reason to believe that its a short term low that will lead to long term high prices . But other than that, lower prices is almost definitionally good in our existing monopoly law interpretations…

Laws cannot define good or bad.

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

#130

Post by DANmode »

DANmode wrote: post #101
xethos wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

SUPER interesting! Especially since it ISN’T an inherent part of a the protocol - just the default of most clients . Wonder if TF skipping pointing that out was intentional!

Here’s the buried nuance, thanks Tom’s Hardware for picking up the (unusual) slack:

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...

Post reply on HN