tptacek

Easily. Better cast, more Jonathan Banks, more character development, less high-concept.

From the "microvm->EC2" thing in the bounty, I'm guessing? this is another nested KVM bug.

I don't know what indicators HN is using but Pangram says this is AI text.

You can choose to take offense if you want, but since I've seen literally the same sentiment expressed about whether people choose Emacs or vi, I have a very hard time taking that offense seriously.

I really don't think anybody in these "debates", on either side, has a high horse to ride with respect to rhetoric and solemnity.

This in particular is a really silly hill to die on, because literally every debate about software development, from AI to language choice to tabs vs. spaces, eventually settles into a gravity well of asserting that all the good developers agree with your take.

This comment doesn't really respond to the parent; heritability says nothing at all about mutability or whether transmission is cultural.

Are they 12? I assure you there's nobody at the IRS wondering about this.

I think you have to want that conclusion to read the document this way. This is enterprise authentication architecture stuff, and "agent-native identity" refers to how you designate an agent, session, whatever as a principal in an IAM system.

I'm not asking if it's plausible, I'm asking if there's evidence it happened.

Has there been a clear epidemiological signal post-COVID in elevations of any cancers? There are obviously stories about elevated rates of e.g. colon cancer in younger people, but those long predate COVID.

Right, I don't dispute that their PR language minimizes their culpability in public opinion, but I don't see how it impacts their liability in court.

How exactly is that minimizing their liability? You just described claims that do not appear to at all minimize liability.

That's not how civil liability works.

In what way specifically does it minimize their liability? People say this a lot but it's not clear what they mean by this.

Civilly, it's fairly clear. Criminally, it's clear too, just not in the direction you want it to be. Criminal liability for hacking requires human intent; not recklessness or negligence or even knowledge without giving a shit, but provable intent.

Obviously, the labs (or any other operator of a model) should be accountable for malicious or destructive actions taken by agents.

And they are. I don't think there's any controversy about the civil liability exposure frontier labs have if their agents cause damages, and it is remarkably easy to rack up damages by causing computer intrusions even if those intrusions don't cause obvious direct damages; for instance, many organizations are required to engage forensics firms at nosebleed-high costs to assess the impact of breakins in order to retain insurance coverage.

The "controversy", if you want to call it that, is over criminal liability. People feel that frontier labs should be at least as responsible criminally as human hackers are when they're caught (to be clear: an extraordinarily rare outcome).

The problem is: they're not criminally liable, not so long as the frontier labs operate without specific intent to cause breakins. Mens rea thresholds are their own whole area of criminal law, and there are stark differences between "recklessness" and "intent". All of the meaningful criminal CFAA predicates require actual intent: someone, a human being, has to deliberately set out to create the outcome where a specific intrusion happens. They have to want it to happen and act accordingly. In the most severe cases, they also have to do so with intent to defraud.

We could change the law to make it easier to prosecute breakins without provable intent, but I don't think that would make HN people happier.

100% Human Written. See, that's how to do it.

They are measurable in theory, one supposes, but since that's never ever happened before, there are in practice no such scores.

Pangram exists. That post: 100%. Please don't bother. It was so obvious that HN autokilled it at first.

You can save yourself some time replying to me in the future; I'm going to check every single time, now that this has happened here.

It's also specifically against the rules here. HN is for people to talk to people; generated comments aren't allowed.

Please don't respond to me with ChatGPT.

Within my lifetime, the municipality in which I live enacted policies (historic preservation and racial steering of apartments) specifically to limit the number of Black families that moved in. The preservation-based restrictionism continued into the 1980s (and, of course, remains in force today); the steering into the late 1990s. Our Fair Housing Ordinance included an escape clause allowing our board to resegregate specific blocks, and just a year or two before I was born, they used it.

This is not ancient history.

There are no such thing as real country-by-country IQ scores.

The Nosal decision apposite here was superseded by Van Buren, a SCOTUS decision that, if I'm reading your comment here right, explicitly refutes your interpretation. I think?

Also in the Ninth Circuit: Amazon.com Services v. Perplexity AI.

I really don't see how you can synthesize "intentionally accesses" and/or "knowingly and with intent to defraud" out of recklessness or negligence. Those are very different concepts in the law.

Circumstantial evidence is just called "evidence" in criminal court. My argument isn't based on whether there's black-letter evidence of intent; it's that there's unlikely to be any evidence of intent. "Recklessness", "negligence", "willful disregard"; these are all concepts that have their own specific language in criminal law. Deliberate intent is just that: a human had to have a picture in their head of the crime that was to be committed, and a desire for that to happen. You don't have evidence of that because it's not what happened.

I don't see how that follows at all. There are strict liability crimes and there are crimes with specific intent standards. Presumably you've read the CFAA language.

No, it's not nebulous at all; it's a whole area of criminal law. I'm basically shoplifting arguments Daniel Berlin made about this just a couple days ago. If you think he's wrong: lay out the case you think could be made here.

The problem you have is that there is unlikely to be any evidence that OpenAI actually wanted to hack random (or any) websites.

This is the best thing Jane Wickline has done. I worried about whether she was on the bubble because she's so situational (I think that's a good thing), but clearly she's got staying power.

In civil cases the "enforcement" generally comes from injured parties filing lawsuits.

The labs are already liable civilly regardless of how these incidents are described.

Meanwhile: your dog mauling someone is one of the rare instances where criminal liability does attach to your intent-free-but-reckless actions. Most crimes don't work that way, and US computer intrusion statutes are unusually intent-specific.

Can you say more? Under what law were they arrested? Where was this?