They could make that argument the first time it happened but the next time or the fifth time I don't see how they can still credibaly claim to not know that the computer they control was going to do that
that's not intent, though. that would be negligence.
https://www.brandonjbroderick.com/new-york/dog-leash-laws-ne...
There has been a crazy hiring push from both companies to poach security engineers/researchers from Google, Apple, and Meta since Q2/Q3, but the response was very delayed. Many talented security engineers/researchers I know at Apple/Google/Meta (including myself) receiving these offers are worried about taking them due to the risks of criminal/personal liability and the more likely risk of tarnishing their careers.
If it happens 50 times and they keep doing shocked pikachu face at some point they look like the toddler who tosses their sippy cup on the floor and shouts "oopse!"
yes, they look very silly. but that's not how intent works.
openai is being negligent (willfully so, in my opinion). but i have seen no evidence that they intended to specifically hack huggingface. which is the part that the cfaa wants.
again, there are other laws and other ways to hold openai responsible. but the cfaa is a poor choice.
At some point it becomes clear that openai should expect this to happen and so when they keep doing it, it is because they intend it to happen.
When the mobster says "it'd be a shame if something happened to this place" the law recognizes that as a threat due to the mob's history of making such statements before burning places out.
i have been an expert witness on several cfaa cases. the number of times a company is negligent is not a factor when it comes to determining the intent of each charge.
>This is HN thinking law is software.
this is me relying on my experience with these types of cases.
Plaintiffs seeking damages must show that owners knew or should have known about the dog’s patterns. Past complaints or vet records help build a strong case.
anyone pursuing this will have a much easier time pursuing negligence causing damage or something along those lines rather than confining themselves to the cfaa's requirements.
it is unclear to me why people want to use the cfaa so badly. not only would it be harder to hold openai responsible, but a shitty cfaa ruling could also bring along some undesired side effects for security researchers, which i would prefer to avoid.
I doubt it is difficult to prove intent on the part of various frontier labs to create a PR campaign to goad the government into defending their non-existent moat around their products. Squeeze one disgruntled employee or another.
i am unaware of any case where someone was convicted of first degree murder from a drunk driving accident. my searches came up empty as well. are you able to pull one up?
>I doubt it is difficult to prove intent on the part of various frontier labs to create a PR campaign to goad the government into defending their non-existent moat around their products.
to successfully prosecute a cfaa case, you would have to prove that openai employees intended to hack specifically into huggingface. not that they wanted a PR boost.
i dont get why everyone's got a hard on for prosecuting this as a cfaa case. skip the cfaa case, go for gross or willful negligence + damages. it'll be significantly easier to hold openai accountable that way.
Use an LLM, the cases are rare but real. Also, not limited to drunk driving. People beat and shoot each other too.