Hacker News Reader

Comment by schainks | Hacker News Reader

I see this in a couple ways:

- Jensen's framing is exactly what a weapons manufacturer would say.

- There are no rules for engagement when it comes to AIs attacking other systems, I guess? People in power clearly want this grey zone to be as large as possible before The People force them to do otherwise. Not ideal.

View on HN

The rules for engagement are all the computer crime law already on the books. Those laws don't have any escape clauses based on the particular tools used to commit the crimes. The agents are tools owned and operated by a legal entity, and that legal entity committed crimes. Full stop.

Those laws are not being applied. The legal entities are not being held accountable. What does this look like across a national boundary like the government of Australia vs OpenAI?

Probably similar to the privacy laws that are supposed to protect people from PRISM but doesn't. You need to have the willpower to tackle the US government and a trillion-dollar corppration.

OpenAI does business in Australia. They have a subsidiary there with personnel and assets. Its been ... three days since they were notified of a report of this activity. Do you think they've had time to investigate it all AND sweep it under the rug already?

OpenAI appears to have waited months before either discovering or disclosing the activity in Australia, I am mostly curious how this will be viewed in the context of another judicial system or in the context of international relations.

I meant Australia has had three days to investigate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com