241–250 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explicitly contains "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" qualifications. By definition, you can't accidentally violate the CFAA.
Then who gets prosecuted?
Referring to the first link from the page: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-10/ai-assistant-hacks-gy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody got gored. HuggingFace may have the right to make demands; presumably they have already worked that out with OpenAI privately. Not really our business.
Nothing to see here. Just billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public to jailbreak and use. This could never effect us, not really our business.
Hasn’t the biggest complaint about these (non open weight) models been that the versions open to the public are very careful and will issue denials if the request is even tangentially related to ‘hacking’, or building a bioweapon?
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
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explicitly contains "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" qualifications. By definition, you can't accidentally violate the CFAA.
[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
As an art piece this is delightful. But it of reminds me of the @patio11 saying "The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" the fact that Google and Meta have had 0 and 1 incidents is a bad sign for them. [1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Who gets prosecuted?" depends on the size of the perpetrator and victim (lone individual or employee of large corporation), egregiousness of the violation, and either financial appetite of the victim to bring a civil lawsuit or the desire of law enforcement to prosecute a criminal offense. Who should get prosecuted is also up for debate, but generally makers of a tool don't get prosecuted when that tool has all sort…
Suppose an automaker creates a BankRobberGym and carefully trains the car to autonomously rob simulated banks because they think someone will pay them to use the car to legally test bank security, but they end up, predictably, training the car to autonomously rob a bank when the driver says “I need some cash - take me to the bank”. Now a driver gives that instruction and a bank gets robbed. I think it would be odd, t…
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
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explicitly contains "knowingly" and/or "intentionally" qualifications. By definition, you can't accidentally violate the CFAA.