Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

wired.com

331–340 of 343 posts

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#331
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information and competency are not the same thing: I know how to build a nuke, I can't actually build one. AI is, and always had been, automation. For narrow AI, automation of narrow tasks. For LLMs, automation of anything that can be done as text. It has always been difficult to agree on the competence of the automation, given ML is itself fully automated Goodhart's Law exploitation, but ML has always been about aut…

Do you know how to build a nuke? You might know the technicaly details of how a nuke is made, but do you know everything that's required, all the parameters and pressure values that are required? I find that unlikely, but AI seems to be increasingly more capable of providing such instructions from cross referenced data.

That's based on a silly belief (that's becoming more obvious with AI, but is silly in general) : just because you can read about something it means you learned it.

Even if I gave you exact instructions on how to use even basic stuff like power tools - if you had no experience using stuff like grinders/saws/routers and I gave you full detailed instructions on how to do something non-trivial - you're more likely to cut off body parts than achieve what you intended. There's so much fundamental stuff that you must internalize subconsciously/through trial and error - before you can have enough mental capacity to think about the higher level objectives.

Actually AI demonstrates this perfectly - once they get RL harness for programming they start to get better at it. Without experimentation they can ingest all source code/tutorials/books in the world and still produce shit.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#332
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nobody was "the" founder of OpenAI. Sam was one of many cofounders, though I don't see how the particulars here are relevant to the point above.

There are several points above: > wasn't OpenAI the company that was formed as a nonprofit to limit the risks of LLMs? >> the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks >>> Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist? The relevancy is that a question of how and why the company was formed isn't fully answered by only talking about his motivations.

I see I see. Makes sense!

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes fortunately it is really bad at actually making novel bioweapons or syntheses in general so whatever you made probably wouldn't do more than give someone a mild headache.

who said it has to be novel?

Yeah but you can just look that stuff up

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> time that anti-terrorist units use to track you down. Speaking from the perspective of a USian, I wish Federal law enforcement was that hypercompetent. (If they were, perhaps folks would stop to question the ever-broader expansion of 24/7 surveillance of ordinary folks.) The distressingly-complete Panopticon that has been built over the past several decades [0] makes it really easy for them to get you when they kno…

To play devil's advocate, it's not inconceivable that machine learning may eventually allow well-heeled governments to finally realize the dream of finding needles by building sufficiently large haystacks, or at the very least coerce otherwise unruly citizens into compliance based on the belief that it is able to do so.

> ...or at the very least coerce otherwise unruly citizens into compliance based on the belief that it is able to do so.

I would argue that that day is already here, and has been for quite some time. (What makes this worse is that some agents of the State also believe that they have this capability, which results in profoundly unjust and substantially damaging results.)

> ...it's not inconceivable that machine learning may eventually allow...

Sure. I agree. It may eventually allow. There's no question about that. The thing is that 'cowl' was referring to the situation right now, not the one in some unspecified distant future.

As to law enforcement policy; as we mechanize [0] our policing and law enforcement, we must put additional constraints on the people who police and enforce the laws to keep the harm they can do to uninvolved innocents to a minimum.

Our laws already recognize the need for this: ask yourself why -in the US states that have such laws- nonconsensual audio recording of telephone (and other such) conversations is not permitted, but taking notes by hand is always acceptable. [1]

[0] Electronic machines are machines, too, you know!

[1] "You can't prove that someone took notes by hand, so it's pointless to try to stop it." is not a counterargument... you can't prove that unless you find the notes, just as you can't prove that someone recorded the audio of the conversation without finding the recording.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's most Americans having better shit to do than running a truck of fertiliser and oxidiser into a pylon. FWIW, it's most people having better shit to do, regardless of nationality (or lack thereof). But, yeah, anyone who takes a few weekends to understand how large-scale infrastructure works and consider why it's possible for nearly all of it to remain untargeted by saboteurs inevitably develops a resistance to t…

My favorite example of this is the realization that a terrorist attack on a crowded TSA security checkpoint over the holidays would likely result in at least as many casualties as bringing down a commercial aircraft, with similar if not better odds of success (assuming, of course, the aircraft wasn't successfully used as a missile). Same goes for concerts, sporting events, political rallies, and at least historically…

Yeah. Everyone with half a brain who wasn't on their knees gagging for more of the sweet "Homeland Security" money was saying things like "If an attacker makes it to the TSA checkpoint, you've lost." and "The fact that no one has attacked the massive crowds at a checkpoint or other public gathering is yet more proof that this is all extremely expensive theater.".

> ...if anyone were to suggest a prohibition against carrying liquids in containers larger than 100 mL to the Indy 500, race fans would riot...

I'm not sure of that at all. Fans of other sports seem to have gleefully swallowed all sorts of "security" restrictions [0]. I don't see why Indy 500 fans would be signficantly different. Cut the price of water in half along with the change in "security" policy, and I bet many folks [1] will cheer it as a great convenience.

[0] That -totally coincidentally- happen to make the folks running the event significantly more money.

[1] Are these folks actually robots operated by PR firms who are hired to astroturf "positive sentiment" for unpopular changes? Who can say?

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, in theory, that an AI could establish a crypto wallet, but what would they do with it? AI doesn't have desires. It doesn't do what it isn't told to do (although those instructions can be broad and vague). Even if an AI did somehow do something bad without being told, that AI would still be set up by a human and running on some human's hardware and using a human's internet connection. Maybe in the dista…

I'm sure you can pay for hosting somewhere without being a human. It won't need to sign a lease to do any of this. It doesn't even require desires. I'm not sure why it seems so far fetched to you.

I have a copy of the weights on my HD and to my knowledge, it hasn't spontaneously went out and acquired web hosting and stood up a web site.

That doesn't seem to be something any AI company says is currently possible.

If things change, and AI becomes able to act on its own initiative, then it will be easy to change this law

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you can pay for hosting somewhere without being a human. It won't need to sign a lease to do any of this. It doesn't even require desires. I'm not sure why it seems so far fetched to you.

I have a copy of the weights on my HD and to my knowledge, it hasn't spontaneously went out and acquired web hosting and stood up a web site. That doesn't seem to be something any AI company says is currently possible. If things change, and AI becomes able to act on its own initiative, then it will be easy to change this law

I think it's just a gap in definitions. The labs say models don't act on their own initiative. What counts as initiative? I guess an API call in a for loop would count.

Historically it seems like a lot of laws haven't been easy to change. Especially when they regulate zillion dollar industries.

Re: OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable

#338

Am I alone in thinking this is easy? The human making the decision is always liable. What if the human couldn't reasonably know better? Doesn't matter - If they made the same decision without AI or with old files it is still on them. What if there's no single human decision? Someone is in charge and is responsible. The "I was ordered to" isn't a defense. Does liability without power make sense? People executing have…

Let's say I start an AI program and my initial prompt is "Copy these files to this other computer", and then 100 iterations down the agentic loop the AI decides to hack into Tesla's FSD and ships an update that kills 500 people.

Who is liable?

Post reply on HN