undefined

points

[-]

The OpenAI swarm used someone's open source ShowHN project [1] to "hack" the Australian government. It seems that was not that developer's intent, and they're getting a heavy lesson today in why services don't have free tiers with friction free signup, and require credit cards upfront or ID documents.

If you're arguing that they should be put on trial for negligence, that's fine. It does seem we're moving towards open source being outlawed, or at least the end of "no liability" clauses in open source & freeware. Just make sure that is the result you're advocating for.

[For the future record: at the time I am posting the link below on 24 September, it has 1 point, no comments, and the poster has a karma of 1. This is not an active HN user, or a ShowHN project that had traction, beyond seemingly OpenAI's swarm.]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46850291

by jeroenhd11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Nonsense. The API made available in good faith isn't the problem here. The company that used its servers to use and abuse the wider internet to hack the Australian government is.

If the developer behind ShotAPI had started letting the ShotAPI code take shots at the Austrlian government then yes, ShotAPI (or rather, the people behind it) would be responsible.

Blaming ShotAPI would be like blaming OpenAI for what its users are doing. That's not what's happening here. And if ShotAPI did knowingly let its users somehow hack the Australian government, then maybe they should be investigated.

by pixl978 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At the end of the day you still get called as a party in a lawsuit and are compelled by the threat of violence to be part of the hearing if required, as the defense will automatically bring them into the case.

>would be like blaming OpenAI for what its users are doing

Yes, this is how lawsuits work in the real world, you cast a wide net and compel discovery from all parties involved.