From my understanding and IANAL there are two main problems.
1) most law requires intent, especially criminal. OpenAI certainly didn't "intend" to hack these companies given they did sandbox them etc.
2) Given the agent hacked them, not a human, a lot of law requires a person/employee to have done it to hold the company liable if it was part of their work duties.
I think the only real potential ground is negligence (in not sandboxing them correctly and being reckless with running these tests at all), but this requires not taking reasonable precautions. They could argue that they _did_ but it was so novel the precautions failed. But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case.
Interestingly this was solved with new laws for self driving cars, most of which assign the company that is operating the car as the "person" involved explicitly.
Your honor, it wasn't me who robbed the bank and shot the security guards, it was the gun!
then the clerks start handing me money, what am i to do? not take it? i was just trying to get back safely to my home...
I do not believe we have reached the point where society and the legal frameworks recognize a software program as a legal person.
There is no "agent done it". The only reason someone can even bring up such an argument with a straight face is to absolve themselves (yes, you) of any responsibility for their own behavior.
That's me being generous and not assuming straight up that you are either a troll, a bot, or intentionally a malicious criminal.
I am not a lawyer either, which is maybe why I am not convinced by your reasoning.
Intent - you (the person operating the agents) provided instructions and used specific models and agent parameters, that is the intent, just like writing C code and compiling intends to generate assembly code.
Sandboxing - that strengthens the intent claim, you knew it is dangerous, did you verify the sandbox is good enough for the intended purposes? Did you first run tests to try and circumvent the sandbox before letting the agents run free in the sandbox? The fact you put a string and call it a fence doesn't mean you have a fence.
We don't really need new laws, most of the cases are simpler with more educated judges and lawyers that don't fall for the AI companies' sales rhetoric. Most of the new laws actually take away the responsibility from the actual perpetrators and on to people who have no chance of controlling the tech. And to say that that is not intended will be naive, very so.
To prove the intent, the instructions- made by human - would need to be "hack this server". Or even "hack anything you can". I don't think this happened.
If it is tracked down to that it originated from a particular computer with a particular ip address, the owner of the computer and the ip address has to be held responsible, it's the same for the human that tries to hack
Hey! I started using web presentations recently, so I went ahead and built something super fun - a plugin (for Slidev and Reveal.js) that adds interactive slides: ask a question and watch answers coming in, in real time. People scan a QR code and respond from their mobile browsers. It's powered by the free version of our product (AnyCable, I'm a co-founder) - but AnyCable is also MIT licensed, so no vendor lock. It just guarantees that with under 2000 people in the audience, it's gonna work smoothly. I tested it on audiences over 1,000 and also on zoom meetings. It's pretty cool. Ask a question (multiple choice or free input), create a whole quiz. We don't have persistence yet but I'm super open to suggestions for sure!
Also my first npm package ever (thanks to CC, but jeez I'm not a TS dev for sure, but, you know, people and robots helped).
Which is not a bad thing. If at least a few of those startups become big they could sustain the Ruby community with jobs and sponsorship, like Shopify and GitHub do today.
> If at least a few of those startups become big they could sustain the Ruby community with jobs and sponsorship,
This is the one thing that most developers dont understand when ever we talk about Ruby ( or any programming languages ). The economics of a programming language, you could hate Objective-C all you want but Apple could force people to program in it as long as they hold the 1 billion Active iPhone with 60% to 70% of Apps store spending and online purchasing power.
Edit: The one way to make Ruby popular. Make the best blogging, forums and Wiki software open source and fight the hell out of it for market share. These three category make up a lot of current third party Web consumption usage without being held by big tech.
I have seen that. But on the smaller companies it’s been my experience that Typescript has universal uptake for the frontend while Sorbet and RBS are things to keep an eye on but not getting any interest in using yet.
We're gathering in San Francisco to learn from, build for, and celebrate companies choosing Ruby and Rails for new products today. Come and join the pragmatists and idealists who enjoy writing Ruby.
OpenAI should at the very least donate large sums of money to everyone they attacked.
reply