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

321–330 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#321

Post by jnwatson »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #319
instagraham wrote: post #270

These are just cases of AI models committing illegal activity - without any legal convictions yet. If that's the logic, how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? Edit: I get that this is about agents, but a lot of these instances are about agents going rogue after the human gave them a task. "inadvertently" breaking the law isn't necessarily a lesser category than "did so on command." If we are…

>how is Grok not at the top of the list for deepfaking millions? How is this the top comment? I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone. Generating images isn't a crime?

It absolutely is a crime in many jurisdictions.

Re: Felony Bench

#323

Post by amluto »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #274
amluto wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In regard to “cyber”, there is, IMO, no valid reason whatsoever to train a model to autonomously create exploit chains. Field testing is a real thing in literally all industries. Except, apparently, the software industry. When it comes to software security and protecting your sensitive data, the solution is "trust me bro, I got my team of the best lawyers on it".

> Field testing is a real thing in literally all industries.

I’m fairly confident that, if a company that makes door locks want to field test their locks, they test the lock and maybe the door. For some reason the software industry likes to hire someone to test the lock but also to bug the conference room, poison the food in the fridge, blackmail the receptionist, and try to intimidate third party vendors into giving away keys to all the other locks, and maybe steal a few cars while they’re at it.

I’m not objecting so much to the attempts to exploit one target. I am objecting to the fact that people treat the exploit chains as such a big deal. And the recent models are clearly going massively overboard.

Re: Felony Bench

#324

Post by moffkalast »

chanux wrote: post #259
lukeify wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever has the least money to defend themselves in the U.S. legal system.

LOL penalty for Ocon! [1] I kid but without going into hair splitting gymnastic, AI justice feels odd. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/formuladank/comments/11j07y1/10_sec...

Pronto Valtteri, sBinalla.

Re: Felony Bench

#325

Post by fc417fc802 »

gruez wrote: post #306
strogonoff wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, manufacturing guns is probably heavily regulated…

I did a cursory search and it seems to be as regulated as restaurants are. There's an application process and on site inspections, but that's about it. The only thing notable is background checks.

And at least in the US if you're a hobbyist at home then there's ~no regulation whatsoever beyond the requirement to permanently affix a serial number and to keep accurate records.

Re: Felony Bench

#326

Post by cindyllm »

inigyou wrote: post #310
phoghed wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans always frothing at the mouth to invoke the justice system and jail someone. There’s almost 0 chance they’d secure any conviction from this.

America has both too much and too little jail. They put randoms in jail for trivial shit to force obedience from the population, but politicians rape children on video and go free. Even better, the videos get destroyed.

[dead]

Re: Felony Bench

#327

Post by dwaltrip »

stickfigure wrote: post #130
chrismorgan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the law of Moses, if your bull gored someone, you were not responsible; but if it was known to be a gorer, you were responsible if you didn’t ensure it couldn’t gore someone. I don’t know exact parallels in current law, but I presume there will be things like that. The OpenAI/Hugging Face case sounded rather like OpenAI building a fence around their bull that was known to be a gorer, and then thumbing their nos…

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.

It damn right is our fucking business. They are unleashing these things on the world. They are becoming more capable.

They need to work properly and not do harmful actions. The labs have an obligation to society to not build powerful, dangerous AIs that go rogue.

Re: Felony Bench

#328

Post by dragonwriter »

eru wrote: post #246
wavemode wrote: post #168

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.

I'm not sure: if you know that LLMs are prone to crime, using them and not checking in enough to trigger 'knowingly' might be gross negligence?

In the scale of mental states in crime, negligence of any kind is several steps below knowing/intentional; you can't be liable for an intentional crime because of mere negligence of any degree.

You could be liable for the (civil) tort of negligence, though.

Re: Felony Bench

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

eru wrote: post #292
paranoidrobot wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define crime though, because one particular action could be both a crime and not, depending on a range of factors that the LLM might not be aware of. Even having a million legal experts on call weighing in on every prompt/response will not agree on everything. Even things like "go and break into this system, use whatever means you need to" might not be a crime.

Keeping a vicious dog doesn't have to lead to a crime either, but that doesn't mean you are not responsible, if something happens.

Legal responsibility can be in forms (e.g., civil tort liability) other than criminal.

Re: Felony Bench

#330

Post by dragonwriter »

cynicalkane wrote: post #235
lxe wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then who gets prosecuted?

In legal tradition, if there's not a law you broke, you can't be prosecuted for it. (Yes, I'm aware of numerous historical exceptions. Those exceptions are traditionally considered not ideal.)

> In legal tradition, if there's not a law you broke, you can't be prosecuted for it.

That’s incorrect.

If there is not a law the prosecutor or plaintiff can point to and say you broke, you can’t be prosecuted.

We wouldn’t need much legal process after a prosecution was initiated if it was impossible to prosecute without a law actually being broken.

Post reply on HN