Comment by ssfdg

5 hours ago

Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems.

I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, the plausible deniability aspect of "the computer gone goofy again" is pretty funny.

September 2029: Whoops, our sentient nukes did a funny again!

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

  • > I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

    Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?

    • Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability.

      It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."

      2 replies →

    • The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".

  • One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility/culpability for (possibly nefarious) actions in the eyes of the public. The average person has no idea how LLMs actually work and think it’s plausible that an “agent” could go rogue without any human instruction. Terms like agent, thinking, reasoning, etc reinforce the misconception that the LLM has a mind of its own.

Sam Altman and the rest of the OAI board should be charged with violating the CFAA for this action.

This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.

  • > from what I can tell.

    The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments.

    Did you try very hard "telling"?