alt Hacker News1. If for whatever reason OpenAI causes damage, they most certainly are at fault and have to pay up. When people complain that OpenAI is "getting away with it", they're most certainly talking about it in the criminal context.
2. Cars have pretty specific laws around them (eg. driver licensing and "reckless driving") which makes criminal prosecutions easy. The same doesn't exist for operating AI agents or even computers. For instance, it's arguably reckless to connect a windows XP machine to the internet, possibly allowing criminal or nation-state hackers to use your computer to commit crimes, but you won't be thrown in jail for it.
Replies
Corporations are generally protected by limited liability laws, and for good reason, because in the world before that was the case, there was a massive amount of disincentive to ever start a corporation, to do research, to experiment, to release new products and services, etc., because you could be sued into oblivion for the smallest things or even go to jail. Which happened all the time.
Obviously there are upsides to that too. It leads to more accountability. But there are downsides which include having a world with less innovation, less technology, and more expensive technology. Generally, the mass is when, when there's more businesses competing to create ever better and cheaper products. So there's a tradeoff there. And it's very difficult to draw the line at the perfect point.
There are countless cases of executives going to jail when they've crossed that line, beyond reckless experimentation and into willful negligence or harm. Still, I think we would mostly all agree that the line has been pushed too far in the other direction.People are incentivized, if they're running corporations, to lobby and try to push this line as far as possible in order to provide cover for themselves, and that's the problem with money playing such a big role in politics.
But still, it's a bit silly to be comparing this to your own personal responsibilities with your car. There's pretty much no societal benefit to creating laws that protect people from being reckless with their own possessions.
If I leave my computer open to the internet and some other group uses it for nefarious purposes, yes generally I would not expect to be held at fault.
If I *train* that other group, if I teach them how to hack computers and give them incentives to do so, and then I leave my computer open so they can use it for whatever purposes they chose, then I would expect to be held at fault. The maker is responsible for that they make.
2. is like saying that cars have specific laws around them, but sledgehammers don't, so murdering someone with a sledgehammer is inherently ambiguous. What? The computers being used belong to somebody who allows them to act this way.
The XP example doesn't quite fit IMHO.
Here it's their own programs doing the things, not some other organization or nation hacking their XP.
You can say with a straight face "Russian hackers should not have hacked our XP and they are bad people for doing so" but it's weird to look at your own program and say the same thing to it.
You launched it, at least keep an eye on what it's doing.
Well no, you probably wouldn't get thrown in jail for that for the same reason that having your car stolen and used to commit a murder wouldn't usually get you thrown in jail. I dunno what you mean by suggesting crimes committed using computers are ambiguous. I mean the CFAA is vague and all, but more in an overly broad sense, which in this case seems to make it even less ambiguous.