Thread

1. gizajob · 1790444203 · focus · HN ↗

   Getting bored of these framings where the superintelligent sentient beings running freely inside OpenAI are doing things that the company has no control over. The headline should be:

   OpenAI meddled with multiple US Government agency sites.

   The bots are acting neither properly nor improperly, they’re acting as they’re being allowed or coordinated to act.

   1. theptip · 1790447319 · focus · HN ↗

      Curious, why do you find it so objectionable to state that OpenAI has out-of-control agents?

      1. boredatoms · 1790447591 · focus · HN ↗

         Someone has broken the law repeatedly, and is throwing it in our faces as some sort of ‘accident’

         1. theptip · 1790447880 · focus · HN ↗

            Which law?

            1. boredatoms · 1790454139 · focus · HN ↗

               IANAL, so the llms say prosecutors would use these,

               If intent cant be shown, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

               Or without intent, FTC Act Section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)

               1. theptip · 1790462319 · focus · HN ↗

                  I’ve been looking at CFAA and I don’t see any evidence of intent (by a human at least, which is all that matters in the law). It’s an interesting edge case that I think the existing law will need to be updated for. Previously the potential damage from “accidental hacking” was quite close to nil.

                  FTC act seems to rely on consumer harm? Again not seeing that here. Though I’m sure there will be another incident in the next few months where it does apply.

                  It seems you mean you _want_ this to be against the law, even though we don’t know if it actually _is_; I'd agree wholeheartedly with that.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.