I am baffled why people are going "oh no what is to be done" about openai breaking into a competitors computers, when it is incredibly obvious: Charge them under the CFAA.
-
@swearyanthony@mastodon.social same goes for self driving cars?
Power outage causes your shit to block the road because their edge case didn't cover a light being out?
Ticket for blocking traffic. Blocking a bike lane? Ticket. Treat it as an incentive, reinforcement learning if you will@swearyanthony@mastodon.social every rolled stop or excessive speeding by a Tesla in "mad max mode" or whatever edgy thing it is named? Tickets and NTSB investigation for knowingly creating a system that will break laws and endange people by design.
-
@swearyanthony@mastodon.social same goes for self driving cars?
Power outage causes your shit to block the road because their edge case didn't cover a light being out?
Ticket for blocking traffic. Blocking a bike lane? Ticket. Treat it as an incentive, reinforcement learning if you will@rachel yep the same sort of thing. Note that Tesla's "self-driving" has a check for "oh fuck about to be in an accident" where it turns off just before impact. Which sure as fuck sounds like mens rea if it was taken to court.
-
"oh they should have known to run it sandboxed". Sounds like pretty shit, untrustworthy software when you put it like that. I mean, we've been running java applets downloaded from the Internet in sandboxes for what, 30 years? But that's because it's an obvious attack vector. You're saying this trillion dollar industry of the future produces stuff of a similar quality as we sandboxed against in the 1990s.
And that you aren't employing people who are skilled enough to build sandboxes for your own products. Great industry.
-
It's just accountability laundering. See also the recent thing where an AI coding framework would sometimes delete all your files, and they tried to say "it made an honest mistake". No it didn't. It had a severe bug. Try saying "Excel made an honest mistake and corrupted all of the files in your SharePoint". Does that make it better?
@swearyanthony accountability laundering is the final goal of ai. no company ever at fault in any sort of legal way, "you see, the agent did it and it's a smol bean"
-
It's just accountability laundering. See also the recent thing where an AI coding framework would sometimes delete all your files, and they tried to say "it made an honest mistake". No it didn't. It had a severe bug. Try saying "Excel made an honest mistake and corrupted all of the files in your SharePoint". Does that make it better?
@swearyanthony I worked at a robotics startup for 8 years. Autonomous vehicles for indoors industrial work. One thing that was explicitly discussed is this:
Do not anthropomorphise the AMVs. When people do that, then they ignore or excuse issues. Unaddressed issues are dangerous.
"Number 23 is slow. We should open a service ticket."
"Oh, that's just old Betsy. She's always a little stiff in the morning."No, it's a malfunctioning machine that needs repair. Don't humanise the machines!
-
@swearyanthony I worked at a robotics startup for 8 years. Autonomous vehicles for indoors industrial work. One thing that was explicitly discussed is this:
Do not anthropomorphise the AMVs. When people do that, then they ignore or excuse issues. Unaddressed issues are dangerous.
"Number 23 is slow. We should open a service ticket."
"Oh, that's just old Betsy. She's always a little stiff in the morning."No, it's a malfunctioning machine that needs repair. Don't humanise the machines!
@swearyanthony All that said, we did have an AMV called Batman. It was a very old model used for testing only.
-
And that you aren't employing people who are skilled enough to build sandboxes for your own products. Great industry.
Sure sounds like a company who don't think they need to do things like "obey laws" or "exhibit at least the sort of care you would expect from a second year undergrad". Tremendous industry, apparently non-consensual nudifying is a free speech issue too?
https://www.wired.com/story/openais-rogue-ai-agent-hacked-more-than-just-hugging-face/ -
@swearyanthony accountability laundering is the final goal of ai. no company ever at fault in any sort of legal way, "you see, the agent did it and it's a smol bean"
@cap_ybarra "oh we had to lay people off because in the future AI will do their jobs" is a thing the govt of Canada is saying.
-
@swearyanthony I worked at a robotics startup for 8 years. Autonomous vehicles for indoors industrial work. One thing that was explicitly discussed is this:
Do not anthropomorphise the AMVs. When people do that, then they ignore or excuse issues. Unaddressed issues are dangerous.
"Number 23 is slow. We should open a service ticket."
"Oh, that's just old Betsy. She's always a little stiff in the morning."No, it's a malfunctioning machine that needs repair. Don't humanise the machines!
@grim_elsewhere as I was just saying, the Tesla self-driving is designed to detect an accident is about to happen, and will disengage just before impact.
-
Sure sounds like a company who don't think they need to do things like "obey laws" or "exhibit at least the sort of care you would expect from a second year undergrad". Tremendous industry, apparently non-consensual nudifying is a free speech issue too?
https://www.wired.com/story/openais-rogue-ai-agent-hacked-more-than-just-hugging-face/oh no what is to be done, if only there were laws against things like 'breaking into someone else's computer without permission'.
oh huh there are. in fact quite a lot of them. oddly enough "we knew it might be successful in breaking into someone else's stuff, but made sure to not watch when it was running" isn't a defense.
-
oh no what is to be done, if only there were laws against things like 'breaking into someone else's computer without permission'.
oh huh there are. in fact quite a lot of them. oddly enough "we knew it might be successful in breaking into someone else's stuff, but made sure to not watch when it was running" isn't a defense.
Are laws like the CFAA used in bullshit ways? Absolutely, RIP Aaron. Is this one of those cases? Absolutely not.
-
oh no what is to be done, if only there were laws against things like 'breaking into someone else's computer without permission'.
oh huh there are. in fact quite a lot of them. oddly enough "we knew it might be successful in breaking into someone else's stuff, but made sure to not watch when it was running" isn't a defense.
@swearyanthony so you either have to intend the crime or be reckless as to a foreseeable risk and I think their defence here is going to be 'this is a new technology and we didn't frankly know it could DO that'
-
@swearyanthony so you either have to intend the crime or be reckless as to a foreseeable risk and I think their defence here is going to be 'this is a new technology and we didn't frankly know it could DO that'
@onekind they *designed* a program to break into other computers, then ran it in a way where it would do that, and claimed they didn't bother to monitor what it was doing.
-
@onekind they *designed* a program to break into other computers, then ran it in a way where it would do that, and claimed they didn't bother to monitor what it was doing.
@swearyanthony You would still need to use POSIWID intentionality and I'm not sure where American jurisprudence is sitting with that.
-
I am baffled why people are going "oh no what is to be done" about openai breaking into a competitors computers, when it is incredibly obvious: Charge them under the CFAA. "Oh but their research". Sandbox it from the Internet. "Oh it's too hard to do that". Skill issue, get good.
As I said: Weird that Robert Morris got charged for all of the computers his worm broke into. After all, he didn't do it, the computer program did it, that's completely different, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
@swearyanthony If their story is true, that's a crime. If their story is a lie--it most certainly is baldfaced lie--that's a crime.
-
"oh they should have known to run it sandboxed". Sounds like pretty shit, untrustworthy software when you put it like that. I mean, we've been running java applets downloaded from the Internet in sandboxes for what, 30 years? But that's because it's an obvious attack vector. You're saying this trillion dollar industry of the future produces stuff of a similar quality as we sandboxed against in the 1990s.
@swearyanthony they did run it sandboxed. It found a 0day and broke out of the sandbox.
(This is not an argument against them facing criminal accountability: quite the reverse)
-
@swearyanthony they did run it sandboxed. It found a 0day and broke out of the sandbox.
(This is not an argument against them facing criminal accountability: quite the reverse)
@pozorvlak yes as I said elsewhere in the thread - them not being willing to ensure it was properly sandboxed is a "them" problem.
-
@pozorvlak yes as I said elsewhere in the thread - them not being willing to ensure it was properly sandboxed is a "them" problem.
@pozorvlak why wasn't there monitoring? If it was for some reason impossible to do even *that*, why wasn't the project stopped for a rethink.
-
@pozorvlak why wasn't there monitoring? If it was for some reason impossible to do even *that*, why wasn't the project stopped for a rethink.
@swearyanthony It wasn't stopped because they didn't know the attack was coming from them until after it was over, and they didn't expect anything like this to happen. Did they need better sandboxing and monitoring? Sure. But it's going to be increasingly difficult to defend against AIs as they become more capable, and ultimately I don't think they shouldn't be doing this kind of gain-of-function research at all. Criminal penalties might help focus their minds.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
