This is a wrong-headed attempt to regulate AI. The real problems are different.
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding.
So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard.
It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet.
It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
"more constraints on corporate power" assumes that the existing ones are functional, which they arguably are not.
If we enforced existing laws against unauthorized access to someone else's computer resources against the companies who run a model that hacks someone else, rather than buying their "The agents did it, we're not responsible" BS, then maybe the incentives to behave responsibly would improve.
OpenAI immediately disclosed the hack and submitted to both internal and external investigations, and published extremely detailed breakdowns of what happened. How is that not taking responsibility?
The penalty for "unauthorized access to a computer system" is 1 to 20 years in prison[1]. Holding corporations accountable would include sending the highest person in the chain-of-command that caused the Hugging Face incident to jail. Or at least start with some charges and then let the judicial system do its thing.
[1] 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
To what end? What would that force OpenAI to do that they are not already doing in response to the incident?
They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight.
You put people in jail
if the other incentives aren’t enough.
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding. So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard. It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet. It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
zdw · · focus · HN ↗
If we enforced existing laws against unauthorized access to someone else's computer resources against the companies who run a model that hacks someone else, rather than buying their "The agents did it, we're not responsible" BS, then maybe the incentives to behave responsibly would improve.
derekdahmer · · focus · HN ↗
Swizec · · focus · HN ↗
The penalty for "unauthorized access to a computer system" is 1 to 20 years in prison[1]. Holding corporations accountable would include sending the highest person in the chain-of-command that caused the Hugging Face incident to jail. Or at least start with some charges and then let the judicial system do its thing.
[1] 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
derekdahmer · · focus · HN ↗
They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight.
You put people in jail if the other incentives aren’t enough.
harimau777 · · focus · HN ↗