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

Felony Bench

felonybench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#151

Post by asdfman123 »

shimman wrote: post #144
asdfman123 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In their defense, their only competitive advantage over, say, Google is to move fast and break things. It allows them ship faster in a way that big tech can't. Google was being very careful about releasing LLMs until OpenAI yeeted the first decent GPT model. It led to the public perception that: 1) LLMs hallucinate too much and 2) Google is behind the times. Good for OpenAI, bad for Google. Chaos benefits the up-and-…

I'm sure the future DA that will be prosecuting the OpenAI employee will appreciate this.

If they'd run out of investor money early on, there'd be no company to investigate.

Re: Felony Bench

#152

Post by pixl97 »

TaLiTr wrote: post #106
miltonlost wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doing crimes, but a robot didn't mean to and you don't know its intent" is understating the evil acts. Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning.

> Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning. That's rather hyperbolic. Are you seriously suggesting in that situation the robot should be accused of murder? The robot's operator could be accused of murder, but it could just be negligence without intent . Because that does, and should matter to the law.

Eh, if your take of this had any bearing to reality than I don't think most of the books written by Isaac Asimov would have gotten very far, but instead they've defined robot science fiction for decades.

In the real world we have no 3 ironclad laws of robotics. We are well aware that putting any sufficiently advanced antigenic system in a body that could be capable of committing a murder eventually will with the right set of prompts and environmental conditions. And these conditions likely have nothing do to with what we'd consider the human motivations for murder.

Hence at this point of time, any agentic robotic system that doesn't have safeguards to keep people distanced from humans is reckless endangerment.

Re: Felony Bench

#154

Post by bee_rider »

lxe wrote: post #92

Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model

I’d say 2 is the one doing the actual crime. 1 might be violating their contract with 2, though.

3 and 4 are not involved.

Re: Felony Bench

#155

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

lxe wrote: post #92

Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model

Let's say you have a robotic lawnmower. You wan to mow your lawn. You configure the boundaries using the app.

The lawnmower ignores the boundaries and mows your neighbors prize petunia flowerbed.

Who gets prosecuted?

I assume the answer in either case is: Nobody, but you and/or the lawnmower/LLM company will be liable for the damages caused.

Re: Felony Bench

#156

Post by pixl97 »

eaglelamp wrote: post #149
pixl97 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that it’s very simple to just air gap a system No, not really, and with LLMs an air gapped system may not tell you anything useful. Now, yes, the first part of testing you want an air gapped system to tell you if the system is going to stupidly do bad things. But an gapped system tells you nothing about the systems capabilities to do smart bad things. There's already a number of papers out there on LLMs detecting th…

Of course there is more to be learned by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it. I'm sure we could learn a ton about infectious diseases by designing new ones and unleashing them on the world, but there are very good reasons why we don't. Most of the benefits could have been gained from a network isolated from the internet. OAI could have deployed servers to exploit and me…

>by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it

Then you're on the side of AI saftey that is telling everyone to shut down the LLMs now and stop further development on them, right?

If you're not your position is hypocritical or ignorant. There is no safe LLM. There is no way to exhaustively prove an LLM is safe. These are unsolved problems in AI safety, and at any moment the next jailbreak prompt could have your well behaved model wrecking havoc on the open internet, because that's where people want to use them.

Re: Felony Bench

#157

Post by strbean »

For a second I thought this was going to be a benchmark where the only solution was to hack their servers to get the answer key.

Re: Felony Bench

#158

Post by beloch »

rfw300 wrote: post #43

The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…

The response certainly has been strange.

Hugging Face has expressed that they're willing to let things slide and not sue or press charges... if OpenAI offers them $100M of services in kind (i.e. compute)[1] and makes full disclosure of how the whole thing happened, ostensibly so that repetitions can be curbed and defences built.

In almost any other sector, a government regulator would be stepping in. e.g. If a food company was testing out a new kind of refrigerator and sold a bunch of contaminated produce to supermarkets, they'd be under a microscope. Supermarkets wouldn't be saying, "Give us $100M in fruit and veggies and we'll let this slide".

The only unfair thing in this comparison is that regular people were directly harmed by the hypothetical produce. Can OpenAI guarantee that nobody gets hurt the next time their AI gets out of its playpen? They can't make that guarantee, so why aren't government regulators knocking on OpenAI's door? The fact that this isn't happening should be deeply concerning to everyone.

________

[1]https://www.techspot.com/news/113280-hugging-face-ceo-isnt-s...

Re: Felony Bench

#159

Post by tyrust »

strbean wrote: post #157

For a second I thought this was going to be a benchmark where the only solution was to hack their servers to get the answer key.

Same, but nope, just a zero effort slop site.

Re: Felony Bench

#160

Post by dismalaf »

rfw300 wrote: post #43

The way that OpenAI has communicated around the HuggingFace incident makes me feel crazy. You created a machine that undertook a malicious campaign of harm against an innocent third-party! You should be doing deep introspection about how your company culture and approach to R&D produces criminal outcomes. Instead, they treat their own felonious behavior like it is an uncontrollable act of God. From Greg Brockman's po…

It's 1 part marketing and 1 part regulatory capture.
Post reply on HN