‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Early rogue AI agent activity and attempts to hack found on urlquery.net

267 points · 313 comments · snikolaev

  1. alex-moon · · focus · HN ↗
    It's said on every one of these but it bears repeating: existing cybercrime legislation already covers this - "rogue agent AI associated with OpenAI attempted to hack xyz" = OpenAI attempted to hack xyz.
    1. colinhb · · focus · HN ↗
      I want to agree but have heard from several lawyers that at least in US, CFAA[1] in unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent. No person intended to gain unauthorised access.

      Now I think the correct response is both trying in court to stretch CFAA and state statutes to cover, which will be highly fact specific, and update the law.

      But in either case won’t be a slam dunk.

      PSA to folks in the thread: If you’re American call or write to your state and Federal reps about this, and if not investigate whether there are gaps in your country’s laws.

      [1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

      EDIT: See for example...

        The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the primary federal statute governing unauthorized computer access, was written decades ago with human intruders in mind. Its key provisions require intentional or knowing unauthorized access (a mental state that maps neatly onto a person who decides to break into a system), but what happens when the hacker is an AI model that selected its own target?
  On the current facts, CFAA liability for OpenAI is unlikely.
      Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.vanderbilt.edu&#x2F;when-ai-hacks-back-how-the-openai-hugging-face-incident-exposed-the-cfaa&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.vanderbilt.edu&#x2F;when-ai-hacks-back-how-the-openai...
      1. podocarp · · focus · HN ↗
        Wait so if I was making a bomb but you couldn&#x27;t prove I wanted to blow someone up or had some motive (e.g. I&#x27;m just a chemistry enthusiast, plenty of those YouTube channels around) so it just becomes an &quot;accident&quot;?

        So as long as there&#x27;s no motive behind it then it&#x27;s just OK?

        1. dwedge · · focus · HN ↗
          That&#x27;s a bad faith metaphor. A better one would be something like a new battery that exploded and killed someone - perhaps it was always your intention, perhaps not.

          Funnily enough the US already has one similar real argument around guns - should gun manufacturers be liable for damages caused by their product?

          1. plorntus · · focus · HN ↗
            I suppose yes they should be liable if they were testing it in the middle of the street?
            1. pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
              And in this case it would not be that at all.

              They were tested in a building that was secured, but poorly secured. The question now is did they realize their building was poorly secured and what actions did they take after they realized what happened.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.