Thread

1. jeremyjh · 1791037692 · focus · HN ↗

   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.

   1. dkasper · 1791037952 · focus · HN ↗

      This has been litigated endlessly with guns. The ceo of Smith & Wesson is not personally responsible for what people do with their guns.

      1. jeremyjh · 1791038104 · focus · HN ↗

         It is not the same, especially when the agent is running a task for the lab. Anyway, what I'm proposing are new laws that establish this.

         1. YetAnotherNick · 1791038373 · focus · HN ↗

            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.

            1. gyt2 · 1791039528 · focus · HN ↗

               Kimi CEO obviously.

               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.

               1. YetAnotherNick · 1791079620 · focus · HN ↗

                  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?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.