Comment by aeve890
7 hours ago
>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?
7 hours ago
>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?
The other parties didn't even pursue a civil case. If OpenAI "hacked" you, wouldn't you?
Perhaps the headline grabbing claims of OpenAI "hacks" are overblown? If they are causing bedlam with such glee why is no one suing them for damages? Perhaps the criminal case you envisage is less clear than the layman news is leading you to believe.
I'm still not clear where most of the alleged cases fall in terms of criminality. Yet I also know here in the United States a government tried to criminally prosecute a reporter for "computer hacking" for finding data using client-side inspect element.
Maybe encouraging the government to prosecute these "crimes" is not the virtue you think it is. Why are the counterparties not seeking a civil remedy if they think they have been a victim of a crime? Perhaps that is a more telling sign than all the people imploring the government to "do something" and come up with criminal charges.
Mistakenly accessing private data or bringing down a website without intent is usually excluded. In general intent matters much in most jurisdictions. Maybe there’s a way to claim negligence but those are all completely new situations. I agree morally the ai labs are at fault, especially when agents “escape” because they have raw internet access.
In the US, hacking laws require intent.
Software behaving differently than intended is therefore not a crime under these laws.
Negligence is still a possibility, if there are significant reasonably foreseeable consequences.
I think there’s a strong argument that it was hard to foresee the consequences since it was all new. This won’t be true if those incidents continue happening tho.
Where does negligence come into play?
In criminal hacking law that explicitly requires intent, or a civil lawsuit about damages?
I honestly don't know, but my guess would be the latter.
I think a competent DA could easily prove that, if you know the model is capable of performing unauthorized breaches into third-party systems when given a task, and you give it a task that could require it to do so, intent is present.
It's not a complicated distinction:
If you think they intentionally had their model hack third-party systems, you could do a criminal investigation.
I do not think that this is reasonable to believe given that clearly the VMs were not intended to have internet access and that committing such crimes wasn't in anyone's interest.
Do you have an example where they gave a task that required breaching in a way that was easily foreseeable ?
[flagged]