411–420 of 423 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the firearm is to inject high speed lead into things so I'm not sure you can say it's misoperating when it does that.
Sometimes that lead ends up in some school kids instead of enemy combatants or other plausible threats to life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what if they create a bot net with decentralized command and control and hack for nodes with GPU and nodes with compute? The only way to kill that is making plugging AI accelerators on the internet a crime. Good luck air-gapping them.
Frontier models don't fit on a normal GPU. The datacenter architecture frontier labs use is not a commodity. What you're describing is beyond the state of the art, and if we go there then anything is possible.
In the physical world, it seems like when an tool/device/instrument causes harm (or is used to cause harm), we assign blame to either the user of the tool or its creator. When do we blame the user? When the tool is operating as intended by its creator, and we agree the tool meets certain quality standards and isn't defective. When do we blame the creator? When the device doesn't meet those quality standards and reaso…
We need to use the laws that exist. Whoever decided to start the experiment that led to the Huggingface hack, and anyone above him up to Sam Altman, needs to be prosecuted under the CFAA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should not be common.
It wouldn't help much. Why would you install a gem other than to run it? And if you run it, it can execute arbitary code. What we need is actually sandboxed dev environments.
I am not sure why the norm for scripted gems/packages seems to be running code on install but it’s very insecure as a way to distribute dev dependencies.
Openai and Anthropic just behave like criminals. First they orchestrate the IP theft of the millennia, then they train the equivalent of attack pitbull and let one loose and finally they blackmail to achieve monopoly through regulation or else they'll unleash the dogs ...
We don't have a problem of missing regulation, we have a problem of actually applying existing law enforcement and make both Altman and Amodei accountable for their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The grandparent comment said "liable". That's civil court, not criminal, and doesn't need the DOJ to be involved. HuggingFace and/or RubyGems could sue OpenAI. States also have their own laws against unauthorized computer use (hacking). A state Attorney General could bring a suit under those laws, regardless of who is in the white house.
HF falls under French jurisdiction, right? Couldn’t a case be made over there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the responsibility diluted? Charge the CEO…
Great, you’re the attorney at the CEO’s trial. To get a conviction, you’re going to have to show that he willfully committed this specific crime. There are no negligent or stochastic hacking laws, you have to show this specific crime was at his direction. Do you think there is evidence of this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, you’re the attorney at the CEO’s trial. To get a conviction, you’re going to have to show that he willfully committed this specific crime. There are no negligent or stochastic hacking laws, you have to show this specific crime was at his direction. Do you think there is evidence of this?
So we make a law that the CEO is responsible for actions of any agent created or operated by anyone in their company. CEOs will get serious about AI security real quick. Honestly we need to do something. There needs to be a single wringable neck.