undefined

[-]

The Boeing 747-400, at least, uses a 1987 state of the art 3.5" 1.44MB floppy drive.

[-]

I think it's more likely they want to call attention to the fact it was the result of agents, rather than shift blame.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

by pdonis2 hours ago|

[-]

> I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.

Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?

[-]

Whatever may or may not be happening with law enforcement - no one is confused about the liability.

It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."

by pdonis2 hours ago|

[-]

If they're not being held legally liable, then I would not agree that "no one is confused about the liability". Sure, I agree with your analogy with a machine cutting off a finger, but you and I are just two people gabbing on HN. Nothing we say has any effect on OpenAI. And if law enforcement doesn't have an effect on them, then talk about "liability" is just empty words.

[-]

Well... if that's true, and I don't know that it is, it's not because of the agents. It's because of the money. People with money get away with crimes all the time and it has nothing to do with agents.

by fragmede2 hours ago|

[-]

The binding legal contractual consequence known coloquially as "additional investment".

by cschep2 hours ago|

[-]

This is WILDLY optimistic

[-]

And you are WILDLY unhinged.

EDIT: Oh please - he can hurl insults at me and I'm not allowed to insult him back? HN plays favorites.

by mcphage42 minutes ago|

[-]

Oh, you can, no problem. But you’re also wrong, and getting downvoted because of it.

by qarl38 minutes ago|

[-]

I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged?

No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.

by angoragoats2 hours ago|

[-]

One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility/culpability for (possibly nefarious) actions in the eyes of the public. The average person has no idea how LLMs actually work and think it’s plausible that an “agent” could go rogue without any human instruction. Terms like agent, thinking, reasoning, etc reinforce the misconception that the LLM has a mind of its own.

[-]

> One of the main purposes of LLMs is to launder responsibility

No it isn't.

by angoragoats2 hours ago|

[-]

Yes, it is, for the reasons I stated in my comment, and you only need look at any OAI/Anthropic press release to see evidence of this in the language they use.

The LLM now reasons better! Set the thinking level! It learns!

All of these phrases are designed to give the impression that the LLM is an autonomous entity, when it is no such thing.

by qarl1 hours ago|

[-]

"Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.

by jesse_dot_id55 minutes ago|

[-]

Hard agree. The entire tech media is acting insanely gullible in this regard. It's insane.

by angoragoats2 hours ago|

[-]

Sam Altman and the rest of the OAI board should be charged with violating the CFAA for this action.

by RajuChacha1082 hours ago|

[-]

Tort law.

by hackernud3s2 hours ago|

[-]

This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.

by sho_hn2 hours ago|