undefined

points

[-]

> that framing that the agents were independent intelligences rather than computer programs that the organization that created them is responsible for.

Sorry, why not both? If my dog bites someone, I'm still responsible.

by theptip6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Great framing. This dichotomy seems to be a bit of a mind-killer. Maybe because folks think it smuggles in consciousness or intelligence.

As you note, I think you can put both of those aside. The Intentional Frame is useful for these agents, as it is for my dog.

I don’t really know where the “they are trying to dodge liability” meme came from. HF will be compensated or they will sue. Everyone involved knows that OpenAI is liable for damages here.

by parineum4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you're skipping over the (alleged) criminal element here. I think a lot of people are wondering why hacking is okay for OAI.

HF could certainly sue but why isn't the FBI investigating the hacking?

by theptip4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

What crime? I think CFAA requires intent, which I don’t think you’d find here. Maybe my reading is wrong.

by parineum3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There is some allegations of intent. Maybe not "go hack hugging face" intent but a disregard for safety with the knowledge of this as a likely outcome. I'm not sure how that fits within the law.

It's not my argument so I can't say but I do think the FBI should be at least investigating if a crime happened. They might be or might already have, I don't know.

by theptip2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

For the record I strongly hope for a congressional hearing regardless of the criminal investigation.

If this case isn’t covered under CFAA I think we need to rethink it. I’d be surprised if the criminal angle amounts to much under my understanding of the current laws, but I’d love to be wrong here.