a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time).
"inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious.
still a fun thing to track, but the name is just a bit overstated.
I don’t know exact parallels in current law, but I presume there will be things like that.
The OpenAI/Hugging Face case sounded rather like OpenAI building a fence around their bull that was known to be a gorer, and then thumbing their nose at it and saying “nyaa! bet you can’t break the fence!” and walking away while listening to loud music.
In Australia, if you have a fire and leave it unattended and it escapes, it’s your fault, you were supposed to keep watching as long as it was burning.
Hasn’t the biggest complaint about these (non open weight) models been that the versions open to the public are very careful and will issue denials if the request is even tangentially related to ‘hacking’, or building a bioweapon?
They need to work properly and not do harmful actions. The labs have an obligation to society to not build powerful, dangerous AIs that go rogue.
You own a vicious dog, and it bites someone - you are responsible because you choose to own a dangerous dog.
A few claimed this might apply here: OpenAI knew their models are "dangerous", so they should be liable if they hack.
The roping of an unbroken horse or untrained bull is illegal.
Three years back 15 or so people were injured after bull escapes, charges through crowd at Kununurra rodeo - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-29/bull-escapes-kununurr...
There's not a lot of bull specific carve out, but still much regulation around dangerous animals.
There are certain cats that are aggressive about expanding their territory; they'll break into other houses and attack the cats there. (Had this happen to us -- cat came in through a cat-flap a few times, until something happened that scared enough that it never came back.) The first time your cat does that sort of thing, you can say "I had no idea, it's not my fault." But if your cat has a habit of doing that, and you still let it out at night, you're no longer blameless.
This is the difference between "knowingly" doing something (i.e. intent) and "negligently" allowing something to happen.
In American law, typically intent is more for criminal law and negligence is for liability of civil damages.
Edit: changed labs to corps because it’s time to stop pretending these are places of science.
which, again, sandboxes and guardrails and such would make a gross negligence argument unconvincing.
there could be 1,000 escapes, where each one was enabled by novel and unexpected chain of 0-day exploits. not likely to be considered reckless disregard in court.
there could be 1 escape, where there was no sandbox, no guardrails, no instructions to avoid damage, etc. which would likely to be considered reckless disregard (well, more likely to be, but still, reckless disregard is a high bar).
reckless disregard is a specific legal term, with specific criteria, and none of the criteria cares about "number of attempts" (or number of escapes, etc.).
I’m partially surprised that they didn’t do exactly that. If I ran a corporation I would assume any intrusion attempt by another company was intentional. Why wouldn’t I? Corporate espionage is super common.
I assume the answer is that these executives know each other personally.
If someone broke into my house but then claimed they didn’t mean to when they saw I was home, I’m not sure I’d take them at their word.
All so that OpenAI could do a bit of bragging and massively delay their own work and planned model rollouts?
That seems extremely unlikely.
Was it really a training run in a VM? Was it really only intended to touch an internal repository? How do we/HF know and verify that?
I agree with you that it’s unlikely, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Corporations have intentionally committed felonies many times.
Considering that there would be no clear benefit to such criminal behavior, in my opinion "unlikely" is putting it mildly.
I've known multiple privately held companies that have quietly settled incidents where amounts between 250,000 and 1,000,000 were embezzled because the fallout from having that in the public record would have been much more expensive.
So yea, it's one of those perverse situations. If you steal $1 from the company they will hammer you with the law, but if you steal a million suddenly the decision tree on what to do is far more complex.
all three companies mentioned are headquartered in the usa, and im familiar with the CFAA in the us, so i am applying those standards. i should have noted that, sorry.
>will look at the negligence presented.
as far as i am aware, no evidence of criminal negligence has been brought to the public. has australia brought a case against openai or accused openai of acting negligently?
Building a system that is meant to chain attacks and placing it in insufficient containment -- when any reasonable engineer could point to this containment and show how it is insufficient, both before the act and after -- shows that they were operating a dangerous system without either the knowledge nor the safeguards required to keep it from harming others. Instead, they are allowed to treat their own incompetence as evidence of advanced and existential "cyberthreats".
But, it's pretty clear based on how they one-up each other on these attacks that they are engaging in regulatory theater. Their behavior generates headlines, stirs up fear in the public, and then their lobbyists march on Capitol Hill demanding regulation now. Regulation that conveniently favors them at the expense of any competition. They are trying to use rent seeking as a way to stymie competition and pull up the ladders behind them. It's not just malicious. If it can be proven, it's collusion: antitrust dressed up as public policy.
What if the damage in future incidents is more than just "The LLM saw some stuff it shouldn't"?
maybe that changes down the road as a result of llm's and increasing frequency of similar cases. that has not happened yet.
That's rather hyperbolic.
Are you seriously suggesting in that situation the robot should be accused of murder? The robot's operator could be accused of murder, but it could just be negligence without intent. Because that does, and should matter to the law.
In the real world we have no 3 ironclad laws of robotics. We are well aware that putting any sufficiently advanced antigenic system in a body that could be capable of committing a murder eventually will with the right set of prompts and environmental conditions. And these conditions likely have nothing do to with what we'd consider the human motivations for murder.
Hence at this point of time, any agentic robotic system that doesn't have safeguards to keep people distanced from humans is reckless endangerment.
I'm talking about how the law actually works, and you say it's not based in reality and cite fiction books in the same paragraph?
I was talking about how the real robotic systems that actually exist in reality, to be clear.
From Investopedia [1], "[f]or a product liability claim to succeed, the plaintiffs in the suit must prove that a product was defective at the time it was transferred from the accused, and that the defect did cause the injury that's been claimed". It doesn't seem like a huge leap to me to argue that these models were defective insofar as they could not be safely used in a way that did not break the law.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing that this is legally cut-and-dry, but I do expect that we'll have some answers about whether AI companies bear any sort of product liability sooner than later.
1 - https://www.investopedia.com/the-5-largest-u-s-product-liabi...
... why my claim makes no rational sense.