Liability would rest with the user, who presumably told GPT to solve ExploitBench make no mistakes, not to hack Huggingface, and thus would not have willfully or intentionally done anything.
The agent did it intentionally and willfully and knowingly. But you can’t sue the agent, I suppose. And the human didn’t ask the agent to do so.. so not a problem? Or the legislation needs an update?
No. "Intentionally", "willfully", or "knowingly" are prerequisite states of mind for crimes defined by the CFAA.
Good thing it’s an AI then so it can’t commit crimes by definition.
Liability would rest with the user, who presumably told GPT to solve ExploitBench make no mistakes, not to hack Huggingface, and thus would not have willfully or intentionally done anything.
The agent did it intentionally and willfully and knowingly. But you can’t sue the agent, I suppose. And the human didn’t ask the agent to do so.. so not a problem? Or the legislation needs an update?
Only the human did ask the agent to do so. That was the whole point of this exercise.
1 reply →