So we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible, but if you say something inappropriate to the AI, then you can be arrested. That is interesting ...
The US is so overdue for regulation/laws on privacy and electronic communications. The internet is too embedded into our daily lives for the existing rules that governed a bunch of hobbyists and early entrepeneurs to make sense.
Unless specified clearly and plainly (not obscure TOS), everything should be private by default and require a warrant. If that's not possible because "the data can live forever/be copied", then we need data laws that make holding data on cosumers so radioactively dangerous the companies are forced to adapt. It's not their decision to make, it's the people od the country where the live, work, and do business.
The government and business don't want privacy. And they have a lot of power and money.
I keep thinking about privacy and wonder -- this is the kind of thing like the declaration of independence, where a new government was formed when things got so bad. But then I think, business and (local) government wanted independence from the king's taxation and unfavorable business conditions, maybe that was the force behind the change.
So if some 14 year old wants to throw up a phpBB instance on his raspberry pi, he should need a license and regulators' noses in his business, like how we extinguish- erm, I mean, controlled HAM radio?
Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken and no malice was intended, while in the second situation someone allegedly made threats against a police department and thus presumably committed a crime.
almost certainly not. writing down threats in your own personal chat session is like writing in a diary. there is no communication to any other person, so the idea that this is actually criminal is highly unlikely and it almost certainly won't be charged. it's a pretext arrest for police to assess the threat, which is not entirely unreasonable, but it is not a crime.
> The arrest report states that on Sept. 26 at approximately 5:10 a.m., Heller reportedly wrote, "I'm going to shoot up the sheriff's right the [expletive] now." The following day, at approximately 1:07 a.m., she was accused of posting, "This is 100% last chance I'm done. I got a new [expletive] gun today. [Expletive] you."
this is certainly reads as somebody venting in what they believed was a private personal space.
i guess using claude for mass surveillance is ok when anthropic does it. once again why nobody takes these high horsing hypocritical liars seriously.
Because the original reporting is unavailable to international readers, and submitting an archive link does not seem like a good practice. My apologies if this was not the right move. (And I have no connection to The Verge.)
I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot. Was the chatbot on the sheriff's website and that's what was being used? Was the person using their on their end on getting advice on how to phrase it better?
Then again, people willing to make these comments aren't people that I tend to understand or empathize with anyway, so using a chatbot shouldn't be something I should expect to understand either.
Came here to post this, though I do have concerns about what will happen when very cyber-capable models are small enough to form a self-replicating worm...
So I read TFA, read comments, then figured out the "details" were in the gulfcoastnewsnow.com link, inside TFA.
If the police report described there is accurate/complete (who knows?), what the person said is a bit scary.
Invasion of their privacy (going to police)? Yes, but possibly warranted?
Should a social worker have contacted them rather than the police? Probably, if for no other reason than to ask if they were serious about harming someone.
Difficult questions, I'm still undecided on whether it's OK to always ignore someone's rants.
Humans sometimes need an outlet for venting anger and frustration. I guess AI is not the best ""person"" in this case.
Let's all keep relying on real people when we need to talk to someone. At least they aren't all programmed to turn you in when you think wrong thoughts.
I cannot help, but liken this to precedents such as Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Because of this case, therapists have a duty to warn police if a patient shows clear intent to cause harm in the future. "Duty to Protect" is definitely controversial however and there is a balance to be struck. We also know tons of kids and trolls will just "say edgy stuff to bots for the lulz" that they would not say to a human therapist as well. Where do we as a society draw a line between privacy and protection? It's not an easy question to answer.
This is just the same unequal treatment under the law that you see every time the government is involved in anything.
God knows how many thousands of reports like this these platforms send out in a given week. Nobody is following up on some peasant scheming up ways to kill his brother for stealing his inheritance or whatever. But you threaten some local bureaucrat or politician and the cops will jump at the chance to knock on your door and "remind" you who has all the power.
Yeah it was Anthropic. I actually opened the article, which I almost never do, to see which company's chat bot it was. This is one of the reasons I don't use them. They are obviously spying on their users.
So we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible, but if you say something inappropriate to the AI, then you can be arrested. That is interesting ...
The US is so overdue for regulation/laws on privacy and electronic communications. The internet is too embedded into our daily lives for the existing rules that governed a bunch of hobbyists and early entrepeneurs to make sense.
Unless specified clearly and plainly (not obscure TOS), everything should be private by default and require a warrant. If that's not possible because "the data can live forever/be copied", then we need data laws that make holding data on cosumers so radioactively dangerous the companies are forced to adapt. It's not their decision to make, it's the people od the country where the live, work, and do business.
The government and business don't want privacy. And they have a lot of power and money.
I keep thinking about privacy and wonder -- this is the kind of thing like the declaration of independence, where a new government was formed when things got so bad. But then I think, business and (local) government wanted independence from the king's taxation and unfavorable business conditions, maybe that was the force behind the change.
So if some 14 year old wants to throw up a phpBB instance on his raspberry pi, he should need a license and regulators' noses in his business, like how we extinguish- erm, I mean, controlled HAM radio?
How do you differentiate?
5 replies →
> we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible
This is something Silicon Valley likes to tell itself. OpenAI being subpoenaed in multiple jurisdictions lays bare its falsehood.
OpenAI facing any sort of liability preIPO is as likely as Palestine getting its own state
3 replies →
Get back to me when an executive is in jail
1 reply →
Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken and no malice was intended, while in the second situation someone allegedly made threats against a police department and thus presumably committed a crime.
> presumably committed a crime
almost certainly not. writing down threats in your own personal chat session is like writing in a diary. there is no communication to any other person, so the idea that this is actually criminal is highly unlikely and it almost certainly won't be charged. it's a pretext arrest for police to assess the threat, which is not entirely unreasonable, but it is not a crime.
> The arrest report states that on Sept. 26 at approximately 5:10 a.m., Heller reportedly wrote, "I'm going to shoot up the sheriff's right the [expletive] now." The following day, at approximately 1:07 a.m., she was accused of posting, "This is 100% last chance I'm done. I got a new [expletive] gun today. [Expletive] you."
this is certainly reads as somebody venting in what they believed was a private personal space.
i guess using claude for mass surveillance is ok when anthropic does it. once again why nobody takes these high horsing hypocritical liars seriously.
1 reply →
>Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken
Uh, there's no laws on hacking systems in your country?
10 replies →
Original reporting (not available outside the US): https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/florida-woman-arres...
Archive link: http://archive.today/mwico
This should be the main URL here since verge’s is only a tweet like text linking to this URL.
Absolutely, what an incredibly low-effort click hijack farm it has become.
[flagged]
Because the original reporting is unavailable to international readers, and submitting an archive link does not seem like a good practice. My apologies if this was not the right move. (And I have no connection to The Verge.)
3 replies →
The main link is available internationally.
4 replies →
The design of theverge.com is now completely unreadable
I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot. Was the chatbot on the sheriff's website and that's what was being used? Was the person using their on their end on getting advice on how to phrase it better?
Then again, people willing to make these comments aren't people that I tend to understand or empathize with anyway, so using a chatbot shouldn't be something I should expect to understand either.
>I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot.
many people are using chatbots as personal therapists, a friend to vent to, a diary that provides feedback, etc.
Just… venting? I mean u never know i guess but under some circumstances it could be the healthy option, assuming there’s no real intent
Yeah, I hope they were venting. (But I feel sorry for them if they were.)
6 replies →
I'm fine living in a society where "venting" reasonably actionable threats gets you put in prison as if they were real threats.
2 replies →
I wonder if it would be considered a threat to type the same things into Notepad. If so, fiction writers are in trouble.
People are putting a weird amount of moral weight on LLM prompts that they don't apply to other programs.
If her comments in whatever article were accurate I wonder if there is a difference between 'chat with 911 operator' and the AI.
As for writing in a text format that was not ready by others or as fiction, I am thinking it has to do with intent.
Go a step further, she creates a bot that hits open chat bots with instructions on 'be a jerk'. Who is responsible?
Better openweight models can't come fast enough.
Came here to post this, though I do have concerns about what will happen when very cyber-capable models are small enough to form a self-replicating worm...
So I read TFA, read comments, then figured out the "details" were in the gulfcoastnewsnow.com link, inside TFA.
If the police report described there is accurate/complete (who knows?), what the person said is a bit scary.
Invasion of their privacy (going to police)? Yes, but possibly warranted?
Should a social worker have contacted them rather than the police? Probably, if for no other reason than to ask if they were serious about harming someone.
Difficult questions, I'm still undecided on whether it's OK to always ignore someone's rants.
Humans sometimes need an outlet for venting anger and frustration. I guess AI is not the best ""person"" in this case.
Let's all keep relying on real people when we need to talk to someone. At least they aren't all programmed to turn you in when you think wrong thoughts.
HN discussion from earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961057
Ahhh, thanks! So she was using the chatbot as a diary.
I cannot help, but liken this to precedents such as Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Because of this case, therapists have a duty to warn police if a patient shows clear intent to cause harm in the future. "Duty to Protect" is definitely controversial however and there is a balance to be struck. We also know tons of kids and trolls will just "say edgy stuff to bots for the lulz" that they would not say to a human therapist as well. Where do we as a society draw a line between privacy and protection? It's not an easy question to answer.
What is that page? It looks like a "tweet" on The Verge which just links to the actual story.
This is just the same unequal treatment under the law that you see every time the government is involved in anything.
God knows how many thousands of reports like this these platforms send out in a given week. Nobody is following up on some peasant scheming up ways to kill his brother for stealing his inheritance or whatever. But you threaten some local bureaucrat or politician and the cops will jump at the chance to knock on your door and "remind" you who has all the power.
New meta unlocked: Popping onto your frenemy's computer and typing out a quick threat to chatgpt
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961057
Should have vented to your Chinese chat bot
Yeah it was Anthropic. I actually opened the article, which I almost never do, to see which company's chat bot it was. This is one of the reasons I don't use them. They are obviously spying on their users.
I feel safer already.
Shame this wasn't in America where freedom of speech prevails.
Which part of the UK is "Florida" in?
The UK? I should really update my geographical knowledge, here I was, convinced Florida was in China
[dead]
[dead]