51–60 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been data breaches where the SSNs and PII of millions of people have been exposed. That is far more harmful in real terms than any of the OpenAI/Anthropic mess.
An in the EU at least there are laws that fine companies that don't take security seriously.
SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibility falls to the CEO. Charge Altman with hacking hugging face. Throw him in jail where he belongs. That will realign safety incentives. If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged???
I think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But another company did some different bad thing" is the excuse employees of bad companies all go to immediately. Just because another person did something bad and hasn't been adequately punished doesn't mean you should get a pass. If one person gets away with going 50 MPH over the speed limit, it doesn't mean every person should be allowed to do it. Everyone should be punished, but there are always instances of som…
It's more like there are many people going at 120 MPH in a 50 MPH zone, that have ran over real people, but you punish the guy that self-reported doing 60 MPH because he drives a shiny, interesting Lamborghini and not a Prius like the others. Anyone outraged about these AI incidents is not thinking rationally if they were not much more outraged about everyday companies leaking millions of people's PII, SSNs, which ha…
And companies always try to pretend someone out there is worse and garner fake sympathy. OpenAI blew up the memory market and made tech inaccessible. The downstream effects of that are immeasurably massive and will have real consequences. It could even result in medical devices becoming too expensive for people. I don't care about my SSN being leaked. You can find it just by knowing where I'm born and every job I've applied to knows it already. But inability to afford technology affects everyone around me. The SSN red herring thing is not an organic argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nobody did it on purpose?
Correct, no mens rea, unless we're talking the internal reasoning trace of the model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me about such cases, genuinely interested. I still think we should take the opportunity to discuss this case in particular.
There have been data breaches where the SSNs and PII of millions of people have been exposed. That is far more harmful in real terms than any of the OpenAI/Anthropic mess.
Again, what's ONE (1) real world example of "SSN/PII" being illegally exposed that wasn't investigated or prosecuted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyer here. Not quite. Agents in the principal/agent sense have to be human. However, every court to have ever considered it have held the human/company driving the agent responsible under vicarious liability/negligence/etc principles. The only real defense that folks have tried is to claim the agent acted "autonomously", which no court has bought so far.
Who bears the responsibility in a hypotethical scenario when a self-driving rideshare vehicle, without a human driver, god-forbid, hits a pedestrian?
Let's assume the case none of them do, since it sounds like you are asking about "what would happen in the case this isn't specifically answered by a statute".
In that case, the short answer is:
Criminal liability - you could only really charge crimes that don't require specific intent. Reckless driving is an example. You could charge the company since they are the operator and the car is simply an instrumentality. In the end though, there just isn't a lot of people here with legally culpable conduct.
Civil liability - the company pretty clearly because civil liability often does not require the same kind of intent crimes do.
This is, of course, why states where autonomous vehicles operate have autonomous vehicle statutes :)
As a general rule, criminal law mirrors what society overall wants to decide is culpable/not, and the lag time isn't as bad as most people often think. That doesn't mean nobody ever gets hurt or dead without someone being as culpable as society wants, they do, and it often leads to a law with a name - megan's law, etc.
Criminal law is mostly reactive though, not proactive, and to be honest, proactive attempts don't have a high hit rate.
Can we please enforce existing laws? Maybe AI and robotics, and get rid of all the lawyers.
SOLUTION: Make a law that someone is responsible for a bot's actions. Either the bot is signed cryptography with someone accepting responsibility, or responsibility falls to the CEO. Charge Altman with hacking hugging face. Throw him in jail where he belongs. That will realign safety incentives. If the HF hack were perpetrated by a human, they would certainly be charged. WHY has no one been charged???
Lawyer here: This part does not require a new law. Even though agents are not agents in the principal/agent legal sense (because agents have to be human), for the purposes of criminality, it does not matter. Agents do not act autonomously (and every court to ever consider it has agreed), and therefore they would simply be considered an instrumentality of the crime. So that part does not need a new law. The real block…
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this. There is definitely negligence, these companies have often talked about the danger of AI. They have often written about how their AI is breaking out of sandboxes or trying to manipulate the person tuning it. They should have had stronger guards and monitoring in place.