7 comments

  • alex-moon27 minutes ago
    It's said on every one of these but it bears repeating: existing cybercrime legislation already covers this - "rogue agent AI associated with OpenAI attempted to hack xyz" = OpenAI attempted to hack xyz.
    • colinhb8 minutes ago
      I want to agree but have heard from several lawyers that at least in US, CFAA[1] in unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent. No person intended to gain unauthorised access.<p>Now I think the correct response is both trying in court to stretch CFAA and state statutes to cover, which will be highly fact specific, and update the law.<p>But in either case won’t be a slam dunk.<p>PSA to folks in the thread: If you’re American call or write to your state and Federal reps about this, and if not investigate whether there are gaps in your country’s laws.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act</a>
      • podocarp1 minute ago
        Wait so if I was making a bomb but you couldn&#x27;t prove I wanted to blow someone up or had some motive (e.g. I&#x27;m just a chemistry enthusiast, plenty of those YouTube channels around) so it just becomes an &quot;accident&quot;?<p>So as long as there&#x27;s no motive behind it then it&#x27;s just OK?
    • setopt17 minutes ago
      Shouldn’t the difference be like manslaughter vs murder, in that intent matters? Accidental hacking on this scale is a somewhat new problem, no?
      • Zarathustra305 minutes ago
        I&#x27;d say this would be Depraved Heart Hacking. Technically, OpenAi didn&#x27;t intend for their agent to hack anyone, but it&#x27;s the obvious consequence of what they are doing.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Depraved-heart_murder" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Depraved-heart_murder</a>
      • bakugo11 minutes ago
        Intent matters, and this is intentional. They didn&#x27;t accidentally deploy these AI agents, and they didn&#x27;t accidentally give them the tools required to send arbitrary requests to third party websites.<p>If you walk out onto a busy street, pull out a gun, close your eyes and start randomly shooting around you until you hit someone, you don&#x27;t get to go &quot;whoops, didn&#x27;t mean to&quot; afterwards, it&#x27;s still murder.
  • benob1 minute ago
    Couldn&#x27;t find the reference but I remember some time ago a first generation automated gun killing the audience at an army show. Was the gun maker convicted of manslauther?
  • soundworlds19 minutes ago
    Take out the word &quot;AI&quot;, and this is simply and organization&#x27;s (OpenAI&#x27;s) products causing real damage to all of these platforms around the world.<p>You want AI labs to pace? Simply hold them liable for their products.
  • skew-aberration24 minutes ago
    Since the publicized AI agent hacks typically aren&#x27;t malicious, maybe it&#x27;s time to start plastering all public facing web infrastructure with polite requests to stop hacking. Nothing to stop three letter agencies though.
    • orlp3 minutes ago
      How do you define malicious?
      • throwaway274480 minutes ago
        Did the operator want to cause harm? How else would you define it
  • throwaway274481 minute ago
    Words matter. &quot;Rogue&quot; is extremely disingenuous. Someone, somewhere, is paying for this behavior. Either the software is broken or the operator is malicious. Heinously irresponsible feeding an already boiling psychotic hysteria.
  • yewenjie24 minutes ago
    OpenAI agents these summer are like a gift that keeps giving, for the existential risk communicators.
  • lapkaaaa40 minutes ago
    blackwall when? XD