Thread

1. sghiassy · 1790482010 · focus · HN ↗

   No company is above the law.

   OpenAI should be accountable for any laws their agents break

   1. ryuuseijin · 1790486162 · focus · HN ↗

      Should it be OpenAI, or should it be OpenAI customers who give the LLM the instructions and provide the LLM with the tools to execute code and make (malicious) network requests?

      One would disincentivise providing capable AI models that can be used for cyber security research. The other would disincentivise criminals from commiting crimes.

      [edit] - I realise now that this could actually be a case of OpenAI running those agents themselves, rather than someone using OpenAI's models? Could OpenAI be that careless?

      1. majormajor · 1790490606 · focus · HN ↗

         This is OpenAI themselves.

         But in other cases, shouldn't it be both? OpenAI is ultimately the one executing the model calls. It's not like they send you a hard drive or standalone box and then you use it how you want. It's all (intentionally) centralized to them, in a way that's core to their business model.

         1. ryuuseijin · 1790491322 · focus · HN ↗

            I clearly have been living under a rock, but in the case where it's just text in/out of their API, and a customer uses this on their own to do nefarious things, I don't see why they would be liable?

            If they knowingly allowed use of their services for illegal purposes then yes, but in so far that they provide a service that can be used for useful things (including cyber security research) and did a best effort attempt at abuse, I don't see why it should make sense to hold them liable. This is especially the case now that frontier LLMs are almost a commodity that can be used without restrictions from providers outside of your legal jurisdiction.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.