upvote
Well, in the past, there was probably only a very small number of cases where some party hacked an institution and then worked with them to remedy the situation to the best of their abilities.

Which is not to say that any of this is okay and should just be excused, but failing to recognize this fairly significant difference is probably not a great start to any discussion about the issue.

reply
If you break into my house and then work with me to the best of your ability to pay me back or repair the window, does that change the potential of your being charged with a crime?

It could change the sentencing maybe, I'm not sure.

reply
> If you break into my house and then work with me to the best of your ability to pay me back or repair the window, does that change the potential of your being charged with a crime?

Yes, it does, because the damaged party is less likely to press charges. And when it came to sentencing, like you said, how the damaging party handled themselves would also be considered (in most western jurisdictions).

reply
comment deleted, fuck dang with a rusty cactus, this is retaliation for a rate limit
reply
Now switch it to "your dog broke in and destroyed stuff", ya it's still damages but that have to be paid for, but crime gets much harder to prove.
reply
deleted
reply
Well I think OpenAI’s reputation is also shot but it’s irrelevant to their valuation.
reply
Would be good for the supreme court to rule on a "blame the rogue agent" case.

Then we would find out if the argument doesn't hold (in which case there should be liability and dire consequences for the labs), or the argument holds (in which case YOLO, AI labs can blame the AI and we can all do it too).

At least that would make things consistent.

reply
> Would be good for the supreme court to rule on a "blame the rogue agent" case

Have any of the private hacking victims sued? Maybe OpenAI is furiously settling in the shadows?

reply