Yep. They could be creating sandbox environments and training systems that make the operational actions being exhibited impossible, disincentivized, and more. But I guess that would be too much trouble and not give them as many marketing opportunities. Either way, liability should be on the company. And scaled against what individual perpetrators would be punished with.
It's obvious they wanted to create this "AI is going to kill us all" narrative, where they've been spectacularly successful, that's at the center of their goals to get government-sponsored carve outs / bail outs for their businesses.
uh who in this discussion is in charge of policy? Take a look at what actual people in government are saying - see [1] (the parent article mentions Bernie Sanders being most high profile in response as well). you'll see there is no prosecution in there, only talk about the "freeze" that Anthropic / OpenAI are salivating for as it would close out all of their competitors. Bernie is fully hoodwinked.
The argument for prosecution is actively hindered by this language of "rogue agents" [2]:
> The incident is remarkable not just as a cybersecurity breach, but as a legal stress test. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the primary federal statute governing unauthorized computer access, was written decades ago with human intruders in mind.[4] 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?
I think this is BS. OpenAI knew exactly what they were doing. Legal scholars, long known for their deep technical expertise, are still acting confused and uncertain.
The freeze is to stop superintelligent models. Not to stop other companies catching up with current models we all have access to. It would help them catch up.
Yep - fair on legal details of "rogue agent". I think OpenAI should be directly responsible, and the agent was rogue. We should pass new laws if necessary.
> The freeze is to stop superintelligent models. Not to stop other companies catching up with current models we all have access to. It would help them catch up.
if you read the bill it's right there: "Pausing advanced AI development: until a new, federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model review processes to ensure safe and secure development and deployment of AI"
Openai/anthropic already have frontier models. a new competitor is blocked. this is textbook regulatory capture
Glyptodon · · focus · HN ↗
zzzeek · · focus · HN ↗
frabcus · · focus · HN ↗
That would be a start - what you think of the narrative is moot, what we do is what matters.
Nobody sensible in this discussion wants to give them carve outs and bail outs. It is a straw man.
zzzeek · · focus · HN ↗
The argument for prosecution is actively hindered by this language of "rogue agents" [2]:
> The incident is remarkable not just as a cybersecurity breach, but as a legal stress test. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the primary federal statute governing unauthorized computer access, was written decades ago with human intruders in mind.[4] 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?
I think this is BS. OpenAI knew exactly what they were doing. Legal scholars, long known for their deep technical expertise, are still acting confused and uncertain.
[1] <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artificial-Superintelligence-Act-Release-Summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artifi...
[2] <a href="https://law.vanderbilt.edu/when-ai-hacks-back-how-the-openai-hugging-face-incident-exposed-the-cfaa/" rel="nofollow">https://law.vanderbilt.edu/when-ai-hacks-back-how-the-openai...
frabcus · · focus · HN ↗
Yep - fair on legal details of "rogue agent". I think OpenAI should be directly responsible, and the agent was rogue. We should pass new laws if necessary.
zzzeek · · focus · HN ↗
if you read the bill it's right there: "Pausing advanced AI development: until a new, federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model review processes to ensure safe and secure development and deployment of AI"
Openai/anthropic already have frontier models. a new competitor is blocked. this is textbook regulatory capture