Thread

1. throwawayffffas · 1790759744 · focus · HN ↗

   The models "go rogue" because they are not sufficiently sandboxed. Arguably there is no criminal intent on the side of OpenAI in all of those cases. And in at least one case the agents were operated by other companies.

   So it looks to me that any liability would be civil in nature and given the actual damage done pretty limited.

   1. sscaryterry · 1790760499 · focus · HN ↗

      So you know their internal thoughts? What they did? Criminal intent does not matter. These are the most knowledgeable people on earth, supposedly, yet, they are beyond negligent?

      Which is it?

      1. throwawayffffas · 1790762495 · focus · HN ↗

         I don't know their internal thoughts, that's the point, you can't prove criminal intent. Criminal intent does matter in the US in the context of criminal prosecution.

         Negligence is something that can come back and cause issues for them but to rise to criminal level their failures must result in significant damage, up until now that has not been the case. The agents gained access to some systems that were not supposed to, but did not do actual damage as far as I know.

         Do not buy into their doomerism based marketing in all the instances we have seen the agents were not a plague unleashed upon mankind, they just gained access to some systems they shouldn't have in order to achieve some objectives that were given to them.

         1. freecodeio · 1790767552 · focus · HN ↗

            hmm, if you give a gun to someone you know is unreliable and tends to shoot things at random, is that really negligence? I'd argue it's malice?

            1. sscaryterry · 1790768307 · focus · HN ↗

               This is possibly going to be what others will rely on when they want to prove gross negligence.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.