On the face of it, they would have very good cause for some action there, assuming they wanted to.
That's very different than popping an artifactory server with a 0day.
IANAL though, this is not legal advice.
I don’t think it’d be a slam-dunk by any means, but a reasonably competent legal team should be able to establish a case around malicious data interference at the least. There’s certainly enough merit to the idea that OpenAI would be better off settling it as a civil matter early.
The law isn't code. Human intent matters. Also when the really big number is a copyrighted song. Also when AI agents are set in motion to edit wikis or break in to websites.
the HF incident is pretty clear in which laws were broken. this one, not so much.
i can't think of any case where, for example, malicious edits of wikipedia were prosecuted under any law in the US.
>Also when AI agents are set in motion to edit wikis
i do not believe there is evidence that the agents were instructed to edit the wikis.
Fair enough.
> i do not believe there is evidence that the agents were instructed to edit the wikis.
Huh? These are machines, built by their human builders. The humans are responsible.
i'm referring to the concept of intent, which at least when prosecuting under the US computer fraud and abuse act, is a critical component.
for example, creating a program that intentionally takes down a website is different than creating a program that has a bug which inadvertently takes down a website. in both cases, the person writing the code is responsible, but the consequences are different.