I think its pretty easy to solve these problems: Whenever an AI agent commits a crime, the CEO is held personally accountable, as if they'd committed it themselves.
Huggingface incident was different in that there was no one else to point the blame to. That's why OpenAI apologised, provided data to independent researchers, worked with huggingface etc.
The case will be lot more complicated if someone uses Kimi to hack into a site. Should the person giving agent the command responsible or the CEO of kimi.
The reality is they have to reduce the capability to ensure security. If someone wants more? Then use the product with your identity and face scan at each session.
So you want Kimi to follow US law? If Saudi makes it illegal for llm to say something like being gay is normal, should they also catch Kimi CEO or other employees they could?
Because apologizing gets us all off the hook for computer crimes, right? When I hack my bank, if I get caught I'll just apologize and that'll make everything okay. Sure thing.
Yeah, but this is more like if the Smith & Wesson factory had a cannon mounted on top of it that was mostly used for useful things (blasting roads through mountain passes) and then occasionally they happened to blast another factory.
Or say a company makes nerve gas, and the development lab springs a leak and kills a bunch of kids during a routine test. Management had been advised of small leaks in the past, and considered relocating the lab to a facility a few blocks away from the playground as a precaution, but instead they brush of the concerns, start lobbying the government for stricter controls on WMD development, and vow to use the data collected from the deceased children to make the next generation of even more lethal chemical weapons safer.
That’s true, but people don’t typically say “this Smith & Wesson gun killed someone”; they recognize that the person pulling the trigger is responsible.
With LLMs, at least in the cases of internal/test models doing things they shouldn’t, the people “pulling the trigger” are the board and CEO.
I think you’re confused. My point was that for most of the incidents in the news to date, the “user” is an OpenAI internal team or employee. So yes, the company is responsible.
For me the analogy doesn't totally hold up. Suppose the CEO of Smith & Wesson were to host a firing range on their own property without adequate barriers in place to keep stray bullets from hitting neighboring houses, vehicles, and businesses. Maybe that analogy isn't perfect, but seems closer to what is actually happening.
That still sounds like it would be the company’s fault. If I asked it to hack a nuclear reactor, maybe it would be different. I’m also thinking about instances where OpenAI’s own test models escaped their own sandboxes — I would expect them to be responsible for the damages they caused.
The correct analogy is playing Russian roulette. The company says "you can pull the trigger but sometimes a bullet will come out" (see: "an AI can make mistakes"). However, is the company allowed to sell such a dangerous device, under these terms?
But OpenAI didn't just make the gun, they're also the ones wielding it. Imagine the Smith & Wesson CEO himself was negligent with his own personal gun.
Financial companies have KYC rules and regulations as they are responsible for reporting illegal activity by account holders. I imagine AI regulations would look similar to that.
Gun companies don't market their guns as sentient and capable of independent decision making. Nor do they build systems for shooting things that they host and take money. Gun companies are very clear who is in control and where their responsibility ends.
The CEO of S&W also isn't saying that their technology is going to kill everyone in ten years and that governments "regulating" them from themselves is the only answer
> This has been litigated endlessly with guns. The ceo of Smith & Wesson is not personally responsible for what people do with their guns.
This is a deflection. A human is responsible for the use of a gun. The individual/corporation ought to be responsible for the actions of their agent. If you purchase an agent from someone else it’s your responsibility according to the terms of your agreement. And, as in many other things in life, there ought to be certain rights certain parties cannot legally be allowed to sign away.
Better description would be if they build a platform where they attached their guns to allow shooting say deers over internet. Then added automation and deer recognition to that system. And if then system shot someone who happened to pass by I would hold both the company, the ceo and owner of the gun responsible for murder.
The agents of OpenAI hacking other systems is not remotely the same as e.g. Smith & Wesson selling a product that others use. It is OpenAI, the company, that is commiting these crimes and someone needs to be held accountable. After all, if someone commits murder with a gun, regardless of what happens to Smith & Wesson executive weanies, someone will be charged with a crime.
jeremyjh · · focus · HN ↗
dkasper · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
jeremyjh · · focus · HN ↗
YetAnotherNick · · focus · HN ↗
The case will be lot more complicated if someone uses Kimi to hack into a site. Should the person giving agent the command responsible or the CEO of kimi.
gyt2 · · focus · HN ↗
The reality is they have to reduce the capability to ensure security. If someone wants more? Then use the product with your identity and face scan at each session.
Trade offs mate.
YetAnotherNick · · focus · HN ↗
asadotzler · · focus · HN ↗
michaelbuckbee · · focus · HN ↗
jasomill · · focus · HN ↗
angoragoats · · focus · HN ↗
With LLMs, at least in the cases of internal/test models doing things they shouldn’t, the people “pulling the trigger” are the board and CEO.
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
angoragoats · · focus · HN ↗
steelframe · · focus · HN ↗
AaronAPU · · focus · HN ↗
Is it my fault or the company who trained it and is running the inference?
bichiliad · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
sick_of_slop · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
rfghy · · focus · HN ↗
Reading posts on here is slowly becoming akin to brain rot.
throw-the-towel · · focus · HN ↗
altmanaltman · · focus · HN ↗
akmarinov · · focus · HN ↗
mattm · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
This is not the case with SaaS services.
rfghy · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Tanjreeve · · focus · HN ↗
gyt2 · · focus · HN ↗
angoragoats · · focus · HN ↗
nunez · · focus · HN ↗
sxzygz · · focus · HN ↗
This is a deflection. A human is responsible for the use of a gun. The individual/corporation ought to be responsible for the actions of their agent. If you purchase an agent from someone else it’s your responsibility according to the terms of your agreement. And, as in many other things in life, there ought to be certain rights certain parties cannot legally be allowed to sign away.
Ekaros · · focus · HN ↗
yubblegum · · focus · HN ↗
partomniscient · · focus · HN ↗