> that framing that the agents were independent intelligences rather than computer programs that the organization that created them is responsible for.
Sorry, why not both? If my dog bites someone, I'm still responsible.
Sorry, why not both? If my dog bites someone, I'm still responsible.
A bad analogy but if your dog bites, we don't frame the dog as having awaken some unexplainable ability to defy your orders (your dog went rogue). Just because you spent lot of time to train it to not bite upon your instruction, doesn't mean it's the right training protocol or that you introduce enough variable or gave the right instruction. You're lawfully responsible for the bite and ethically wrong for removing the leash on your dog to test whether it bites(do it enough time, you now have a criminal intent), worse you didn't even closely monitor it.
As you note, I think you can put both of those aside. The Intentional Frame is useful for these agents, as it is for my dog.
I don’t really know where the “they are trying to dodge liability” meme came from. HF will be compensated or they will sue. Everyone involved knows that OpenAI is liable for damages here.
HF could certainly sue but why isn't the FBI investigating the hacking?
It's not my argument so I can't say but I do think the FBI should be at least investigating if a crime happened. They might be or might already have, I don't know.
If this case isn’t covered under CFAA I think we need to rethink it. I’d be surprised if the criminal angle amounts to much under my understanding of the current laws, but I’d love to be wrong here.
I do agree with you that this is the mind killer. This is what everyone wants to argue about, because it's the fun question.