Great framing. This dichotomy seems to be a bit of a mind-killer. Maybe because folks think it smuggles in consciousness or intelligence.
replyAs 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.
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.
replyHF could certainly sue but why isn't the FBI investigating the hacking?
What crime? I think CFAA requires intent, which I don’t think you’d find here. Maybe my reading is wrong.
replyThere 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.
replyIt'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.
For the record I strongly hope for a congressional hearing regardless of the criminal investigation.
replyIf 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.