@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 yes as I said elsewhere in the thread - them not being willing to ensure it was properly sandboxed is a "them" problem.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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/

And that you aren't employing people who are skilled enough to build sandboxes for your own products. Great industry.

@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.

@futzle or HF is too scared they would lose funding from the rest of the cult^w industry

"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.

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?

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