← Back to context

Comment by john_strinlai

6 hours ago

i dont think any of these cases meet the bar of gross negligence, which is a pretty high bar. it requires proving a "conscious and reckless disregard".

which, again, sandboxes and guardrails and such would make a gross negligence argument unconvincing.

13 comments

john_strinlai

Reply
Grombobulous  5 hours ago

I think that if Hugging Face had filed a police report that OpenAI could have been charged with a crime.

I’m partially surprised that they didn’t do exactly that. If I ran a corporation I would assume any intrusion attempt by another company was intentional. Why wouldn’t I? Corporate espionage is super common.

I assume the answer is that these executives know each other personally.

  • pixl97  2 hours ago

    Companies are not quick to open up police investigations in situations that run deep into their infrastructure and management. You open up a gigantic hole of discovery and a possible huge time sink of a legal battle.

    I've known multiple privately held companies that have quietly settled incidents where amounts between 250,000 and 1,000,000 were embezzled because the fallout from having that in the public record would have been much more expensive.

    So yea, it's one of those perverse situations. If you steal $1 from the company they will hammer you with the law, but if you steal a million suddenly the decision tree on what to do is far more complex.

  • john_strinlai  5 hours ago

    charged is possible, however i doubt there would be a conviction for the reasons i stated (no intent).

    • Grombobulous  4 hours ago

      I think it’s most likely you’re right, but I’m the weirdo who thinks there’s actually a non-zero probability that there was negative intent and that the “accidental” aspect is a form of damage control.

      If someone broke into my house but then claimed they didn’t mean to when they saw I was home, I’m not sure I’d take them at their word.

lokar  5 hours ago

How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?

  • john_strinlai  5 hours ago

    it's not about the the number of escapes, it's about whether reasonable and conscious effort is being expended to prevent the escapes.

    there could be 1,000 escapes, where each one was enabled by novel and unexpected chain of 0-day exploits. not likely to be considered reckless disregard in court.

    there could be 1 escape, where there was no sandbox, no guardrails, no instructions to avoid damage, etc. which would likely to be considered reckless disregard (well, more likely to be, but still, reckless disregard is a high bar).