They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight.
You put people in jail if the other incentives aren’t enough.
> To what end? What would that force OpenAI to do that they are not already doing in response to the incident?
You could ask this (and people have done) of any criminal code. It doesn't matter. The law is not there to rehabilitate, it's there to punish and thereby deter.
> They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight
If a person breaks the law, the state prosecutes them (or can choose to), we don't require the victim to press charges. For good reason - threatening the victim to not press charges would be a way of avoiding consequences.
> You put people in jail if the other incentives aren’t enough.
This is incorrect. We put people in jail as a result of them breaking the law, regardless.
We absolutely should apply this principle to corporations as well as citizens. Aaron Schwartz died for less.
Technically, it's neither. The law is there to state what ought to be. Even putting that aside, it's prescribed punishment's goal is to remediate and prevent violations of the law, so it has three simultaneous means: to restitute, to deter and to rehabilitate. The balance between the three is predicated on each's ability to satisfy the original goal of remediation and prevention, all the while not violating other laws and rights.
> We put people in jail as a result of them breaking the law, regardless.
A core principle of the rule of law is the principle of proportionality, which states that only the most legal amount of force is the materially sufficient enough to prevent a crime. If lower measures are sufficient to prevent a crime, jailing should not be prescribed, not only to respect the law but also to make good use of scarce resources, as prison overcrowding may not only reduce their effectiveness, but also open the door for downstream right violations.
Yes there are principles of the rule of law, but they've been thrown out of the window in favour of whatever sounds like "strong on crime".
Hugging Face was another AI company. Do you see many of those suing each other and especially the top dogs in the field? Also, do you think it's a coincidence NVIDIA bought Hugging Face ASAP to stop any damaging anti AI waves from happening?
The other incentives aren't enough. All the labs are basically Russia against Ukraine in 2022-206: launching high caliber imprecise ballistic missiles against military targets surrounded by civilians. Whoever orders that knows civilians will do die but doesn't care.
AI labs aren't using proper sandboxing measures for their agents because that would slow down their testing. Plus any hacks that happen, short of breaking into Trumps social media accounts, only cause the kind of publicity they want.