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

Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#11

Post by sodapopcan »

FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame. Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

If that's how it was, most people would be too terrified to use, let alone pay for, software that boasts unpredictability as a main feature.

I 100% agree with you, of course.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#12

Post by whycombinetor »

skinfaxi wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#13

Post by arctic-true »

FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame. Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

How are you going to figure that out? You can’t capture an agent in a jar and convince it to confess. As we saw with the HF incident, even highly sophisticated actors need a good chunk of time and manpower to trace these things. And I suspect the folks who are going to have the most success with LLM-powered cybercrime are going to know how to cover their tracks reasonably well.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#15

Post by whycombinetor »

"The law in America relies on intentionality, notes Rune Kvist, head of Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company, which insures AI firms. If no human intended to hack anyone, no crime can have happened. The ability to sue for damages is limited too."

This is sloppy. Criminal negligence exists (although some crimes do require intent). And civil tort certainly doesn't require intent.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#16

Post by bdangubic »

skinfaxi wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

be a billionaire and you’d get that write-off

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#17

Post by measurablefunc »

Autonomous hacking is an oxymoronic phrase. Someone is running the algorithm & keeping tabs on it b/c hacking is an activity w/ an intention to gain access to privileged information which is often protected by network firewalls & at rest encryption.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#18

Post by FeteCommuniste »

arctic-true wrote: post #13
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame. Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

How are you going to figure that out? You can’t capture an agent in a jar and convince it to confess. As we saw with the HF incident, even highly sophisticated actors need a good chunk of time and manpower to trace these things. And I suspect the folks who are going to have the most success with LLM-powered cybercrime are going to know how to cover their tracks reasonably well.

"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#20

Post by [deleted] »

bdangubic wrote: post #16
skinfaxi wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

be a billionaire and you’d get that write-off

[deleted]
Post reply on HN