The future they say, the future the assure us.
Felony Bench
331–340 of 367 posts
Re: Felony Bench
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, which is the grey area. "Can / might do" vs "they trained it to do that explicitly" is, I believe, the grey area - whether or not they're the same thing. Intent matters for a lot of this - and "intent" is a pretty strong, well discussed legal term.
Your honor, my LLM spun the turbines real fast, as a practical joke!
It's not your intent to use a tool that can cause real world damage, to actually do such damage.
It was your negligence in that case. A different legal concept than intent.
Re: Felony Bench
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. Where we appear to disagree is that any overreaction has taken place. If anything I'm deeply dissatisfied that charges haven't been filed.
While I think those calling for charges know not what precedent they are trying to set.
Oh I am very clear about what precedents I want set. I want the C-suite, board, and major shareholders of any corporate entity that meaningfully deviates from legality to face all of the same consequences a private individual would.
Re: Felony Bench
#334These 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?
Depending on the output image and where you are, it definitely can be a crime.
Re: Felony Bench
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Are you sure? What if I painted the image , but happen to have a photo realistic capabilities ?
Re: Felony Bench
#336These 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?
> I can go on just about any provider and make realistic "deep fakes" of anyone
Not of CSAM - only Grok allows that.
Re: Felony Bench
#337These 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?
> Generating images isn't a crime?
Oh boy, have I got some bad news for you...
Re: Felony Bench
#338Re: Felony Bench
#339> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…
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…
> I don’t know exact parallels in current law, but I presume there will be things like that.
This is the difference between "knowingly" doing something (i.e. intent) and "negligently" allowing something to happen.
In American law, typically intent is more for criminal law and negligence is for liability of civil damages.
Re: Felony Bench
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI and Anthropic both have currently safety teams that look for misbehavior in their models (and to some extent, voluntarily disclose what they find to the public). Going forward, it would be hard for them to argue they don’t know their models do stuff like this.
Yes, which is the grey area. "Can / might do" vs "they trained it to do that explicitly" is, I believe, the grey area - whether or not they're the same thing. Intent matters for a lot of this - and "intent" is a pretty strong, well discussed legal term.
> knowingly
Intent or negligence.