‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

OpenAI still doesn't seem to have a handle on all of its rogue AI activity

108 points · 113 comments · mikelgan

  1. cmiles8 · · focus · HN ↗
    This seems like as a good an opportunity as any to break out the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

    They want “regulation” but we already have it. Hacking is illegal. Start locking up those responsible for this mess and I assure you they’ll “have a handle on it” quite quickly.

    1. semiquaver · · focus · HN ↗
      > Hacking is illegal

      I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt the feds could win a CFAA conviction on the Hugging Face fact pattern, even if they wanted to charge it.

      CFAA has specific intent requirements, and unlike some laws, negligence does not suffice. The agents can not have legally cognizable intent and it’s unlikely there’s anyone at OpenAI who intended for the hacking to happen (if there was, the case is easy).

      Existing laws don’t contemplate AI agents that have independent goals. We need new ones, the existing laws are not remotely sufficient.

      1. sscaryterry · · focus · HN ↗
        The existing laws are more than adequate.
        1. semiquaver · · focus · HN ↗
          I gave an example of why they are not.

          Could you explain what your legal strategy would be to overcome the intent requirement of the CFAA? If openAI didn’t intend to hack anything and agents can’t intend to do anything at all, and the CFAA doesn’t permit negligence to stand in for intent, seems to me like the existing law does not cover the situation everyone keeps saying it does.

          1. sscaryterry · · focus · HN ↗
            Requiring intent is very specific to your jurisdiction, many, if not most other jurisdictions do not require intent.

            In the UK, any form of unauthorised access may be prosecuted.

            1. semiquaver · · focus · HN ↗
              No, the UK’s equivalent law specifically requires human intent and mens rea:

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1990&#x2F;18&#x2F;section&#x2F;3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1990&#x2F;18&#x2F;section&#x2F;3 (1b.)

              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1990&#x2F;18&#x2F;section&#x2F;1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1990&#x2F;18&#x2F;section&#x2F;1 (1c.)

              I’m told that the UK is a relatively authoritarian country where citizens have no real rights, so perhaps it can be charged anyway, but the plain language of the statute would seem to bar it.

              1. sscaryterry · · focus · HN ↗
                &gt; Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing,

                Can you see the &quot;, or with recklessness as to impairing&quot;.

                Edit: You seem troubled. The UK is not like you describe at all. We do not have ICE running around. Instead, we have the opposite problem.

                1. semiquaver · · focus · HN ↗
                  Seems like I hit a nerve. I don’t think I am troubled but I do think that Americans have more rights that are better protected than the British, ICE notwithstanding.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.