"OpenAI models attack websites and take anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company."
No, good gosh let's stop with the hyperbole.
The models were given instructions to get answers by any means in a loose test harness, not to steal stuff, moreover, they're not 'learning from OAI staff'.
If we are cynical, we could say the 'lax security was on purposes - hoping for a big media event'.
And OpenAI is 100% responsible for the actions of their Agents - but lets' not overstate or conflate what is gong on.
They're not "learning from the OAI staff", but lawbreaking and disregard for regulation is absolutely at the heart of OpenAI. And the activities that this company takes (or doesn't take) directly influences what the models do (or don't do).
The fish rots from the head down. Models don't learn, but I find "OpenAI models attack websites and take anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company" completely correct.
The rest of the paragraph from the article:
> We do not have to get too deep into the nature-vs.-nurture argument to suspect that OpenAI executives’ cavalier attitude regarding the taking of information that is not theirs has filtered down to their researchers and the products they create. You don’t have to stretch to paint this picture: OpenAI models are attacking websites and taking anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company.
"but lawbreaking and disregard for regulation is absolutely at the heart of OpenAI. "
No it is not.
What laws and regulations are they breaking?
Their agents broke out of a harness and harassed some other sites, it's not good, but it's not specifically breaking laws. Other companies are treating it as accidental, it mostly is that.
You're rhetoric here is agitating, conflating. This is my point.
> If they broke laws then they would be investigated.
Not a fact but a hope. Most lawbreaking is never investigated. It has to be discovered, the authorities have to be alerted, and then they have to choose to investigate. See the recent Cornell University gangrapes for proof that authorities can choose to simply not investigate.
> They could get sued, mind you.
If they didn't break laws, as you imply, the lawsuit should be tossed out as frivolous. (Spoiler: they did break laws.)
That's such a sorry attempt at immaterial hair splitting - this kind of rhetoric is the worst part of this site.
What is ironic is that if you tried this kind of rhetoric in a court they would actually throw you out.
Nobody anywhere would argue that Civil Law addresses the issue of people 'breaking the law by breaking contracts'.
The argument was made that the 'Judge would immediately throw out a case if no laws were being breached' - makes no sense in context of Civil Law, not even the contrived argument that 'breaking contracts is governed by Law'.
OpenAI likely did not break the law (maybe they did, but there doesn't seem to be a case).
The are definitely getting sued on multiple fronts, but those cases little to do with 'breaking the law', were that the case the government would be prosecuting them.
Stop refusing to cite your facts and expecting others to instead prove their negative. You know that isn't how logic works, especially when talking about the law and there may be jurisdictional differences that impede a single objective logic. Or you don't know that, and I've just overestimated you as average-or-above.
> See the recent Cornell University gangrapes for proof that authorities can choose to simply not investigate.
In the interest of accuracy, according to the DA, they did investigate in 2024 and did not prosecute because:
"Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
No, good gosh let's stop with the hyperbole.
The models were given instructions to get answers by any means in a loose test harness, not to steal stuff, moreover, they're not 'learning from OAI staff'.
If we are cynical, we could say the 'lax security was on purposes - hoping for a big media event'.
And OpenAI is 100% responsible for the actions of their Agents - but lets' not overstate or conflate what is gong on.
afry1 · · focus · HN ↗
They're not "learning from the OAI staff", but lawbreaking and disregard for regulation is absolutely at the heart of OpenAI. And the activities that this company takes (or doesn't take) directly influences what the models do (or don't do).
The fish rots from the head down. Models don't learn, but I find "OpenAI models attack websites and take anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company" completely correct.
The rest of the paragraph from the article:
> We do not have to get too deep into the nature-vs.-nurture argument to suspect that OpenAI executives’ cavalier attitude regarding the taking of information that is not theirs has filtered down to their researchers and the products they create. You don’t have to stretch to paint this picture: OpenAI models are attacking websites and taking anything they can out of them because that is the business model of the company.
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
No it is not.
What laws and regulations are they breaking?
Their agents broke out of a harness and harassed some other sites, it's not good, but it's not specifically breaking laws. Other companies are treating it as accidental, it mostly is that.
You're rhetoric here is agitating, conflating. This is my point.
dspillett · · focus · HN ↗
I'm sure it would be considered a breach of the UK's Computer Misuse Act, and there are no doubt statues elsewhere that are relevant too.
Once is an accident. Twice is incompetence. Three+ is, at best, pushing your luck to see what you can get away with.
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
And I totally support that.
But I don't think they did.
They could get sued, mind you.
ykonstant · · focus · HN ↗
Ah, I love your optimism.
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
The Australian government did an assessment and decided there was no 'intent' on the part of OpenAI and therefore no charges.
Where did they break any law?
anon48293 · · focus · HN ↗
s.474.17 Criminal Code—using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
The AI knew it was doing this illegally. OpenAI is owner of the AI. Therefore they are liable.
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
anon48293 · · focus · HN ↗
Is that what you think happens?
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Not a fact but a hope. Most lawbreaking is never investigated. It has to be discovered, the authorities have to be alerted, and then they have to choose to investigate. See the recent Cornell University gangrapes for proof that authorities can choose to simply not investigate.
> They could get sued, mind you.
If they didn't break laws, as you imply, the lawsuit should be tossed out as frivolous. (Spoiler: they did break laws.)
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
No, that's not how it works. Civil law is something completely different from criminal law.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Civil law is still based upon law.
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
Most of civil law is related to things like breach of contract - not breaking any laws.
Y_Y · · focus · HN ↗
bluegatty · · focus · HN ↗
What is ironic is that if you tried this kind of rhetoric in a court they would actually throw you out.
Nobody anywhere would argue that Civil Law addresses the issue of people 'breaking the law by breaking contracts'.
The argument was made that the 'Judge would immediately throw out a case if no laws were being breached' - makes no sense in context of Civil Law, not even the contrived argument that 'breaking contracts is governed by Law'.
OpenAI likely did not break the law (maybe they did, but there doesn't seem to be a case).
The are definitely getting sued on multiple fronts, but those cases little to do with 'breaking the law', were that the case the government would be prosecuting them.
dspillett · · focus · HN ↗
leereeves · · focus · HN ↗
In the interest of accuracy, according to the DA, they did investigate in 2024 and did not prosecute because:
"Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."
<a href="https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al" rel="nofollow">https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Atto...
esseph · · focus · HN ↗