So we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible, but if you say something inappropriate to the AI, then you can be arrested. That is interesting ...
The US is so overdue for regulation/laws on privacy and electronic communications. The internet is too embedded into our daily lives for the existing rules that governed a bunch of hobbyists and early entrepeneurs to make sense.
Unless specified clearly and plainly (not obscure TOS), everything should be private by default and require a warrant. If that's not possible because "the data can live forever/be copied", then we need data laws that make holding data on cosumers so radioactively dangerous the companies are forced to adapt. It's not their decision to make, it's the people od the country where the live, work, and do business.
So if some 14 year old wants to throw up a phpBB instance on his raspberry pi, he should need a license and regulators' noses in his business, like how we extinguish- erm, I mean, controlled HAM radio?
If lawyers can't figure out the difference between a 14 year old throwing up an phpBB on a raspberry pi vs equifax, anthropic, meta, etc...idk what to tell you. Get better lawyers, it falls into "laws for hobbyists aren't working part of my comment"
Is HAM radio really extinguished? All it takes is passing a test, and the rules around it seem more valuable to sharing a public resource (frequency spectrum) than detrimental?
In the US. Other jurisdictions are probably less likely to let things slide or give them a sweetheart deal to avoid prosecution. For example, I doubt British Columbia (Canada) is going to give up easily on their lawsuit against OpenAI over the Tumbler Ridge shootings.
Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken and no malice was intended, while in the second situation someone allegedly made threats against a police department and thus presumably committed a crime.
almost certainly not. writing down threats in your own personal chat session is like writing in a diary. there is no communication to any other person, so the idea that this is actually criminal is highly unlikely and it almost certainly won't be charged. it's a pretext arrest for police to assess the threat, which is not entirely unreasonable, but it is not a crime.
> The arrest report states that on Sept. 26 at approximately 5:10 a.m., Heller reportedly wrote, "I'm going to shoot up the sheriff's right the [expletive] now." The following day, at approximately 1:07 a.m., she was accused of posting, "This is 100% last chance I'm done. I got a new [expletive] gun today. [Expletive] you."
this is certainly reads as somebody venting in what they believed was a private personal space.
i guess using claude for mass surveillance is ok when anthropic does it. once again why nobody takes these high horsing hypocritical liars seriously.
I read earlier that the crime is making such threats in any manner where another person could see them.
I do not know whether it matters if the suspect knew that their chats could be viewed by Anthropic staff, or if the only thing that matters is whether another person was able to view the chats.
The other parties didn't even pursue a civil case. If OpenAI "hacked" you, wouldn't you?
Perhaps the headline grabbing claims of OpenAI "hacks" are overblown? If they are causing bedlam with such glee why is no one suing them for damages? Perhaps the criminal case you envisage is less clear than the layman news is leading you to believe.
I'm still not clear where most of the alleged cases fall in terms of criminality. Yet I also know here in the United States a government tried to criminally prosecute a reporter for "computer hacking" for finding data using client-side inspect element.
Maybe encouraging the government to prosecute these "crimes" is not the virtue you think it is. Why are the counterparties not seeking a civil remedy if they think they have been a victim of a crime? Perhaps that is a more telling sign than all the people imploring the government to "do something" and come up with criminal charges.
Mistakenly accessing private data or bringing down a website without intent is usually excluded. In general intent matters much in most jurisdictions. Maybe there’s a way to claim negligence but those are all completely new situations. I agree morally the ai labs are at fault, especially when agents “escape” because they have raw internet access.
I think there’s a strong argument that it was hard to foresee the consequences since it was all new. This won’t be true if those incidents continue happening tho.
I think a competent DA could easily prove that, if you know the model is capable of performing unauthorized breaches into third-party systems when given a task, and you give it a task that could require it to do so, intent is present.
If you think they intentionally had their model hack third-party systems, you could do a criminal investigation.
I do not think that this is reasonable to believe given that clearly the VMs were not intended to have internet access and that committing such crimes wasn't in anyone's interest.
Because the original reporting is unavailable to international readers, and submitting an archive link does not seem like a good practice. My apologies if this was not the right move. (And I have no connection to The Verge.)
I am confused, you submit The Verge link but if an international reader were to click the link in The Verge article itself they would still be blocked. How does submitting The Verge link help international readers?
So I read TFA, read comments, then figured out the "details" were in the gulfcoastnewsnow.com link, inside TFA.
If the police report described there is accurate/complete (who knows?), what the person said is a bit scary.
Invasion of their privacy (going to police)? Yes, but possibly warranted?
Should a social worker have contacted them rather than the police? Probably, if for no other reason than to ask if they were serious about harming someone.
Difficult questions, I'm still undecided on whether it's OK to always ignore someone's rants.
I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot. Was the chatbot on the sheriff's website and that's what was being used? Was the person using their on their end on getting advice on how to phrase it better?
Then again, people willing to make these comments aren't people that I tend to understand or empathize with anyway, so using a chatbot shouldn't be something I should expect to understand either.
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. there is a mass shooting there are a series of red flags where people "hoped" weren't really real.
We don't feel sorry for this nonsense we punish it, whether it's "real" or not you have no right to share your fantasies of violence and real or not you need to be treated like they are and removed from society.
Came here to post this, though I do have concerns about what will happen when very cyber-capable models are small enough to form a self-replicating worm...
This is just the same unequal treatment under the law that you see every time the government is involved in anything.
God knows how many thousands of reports like this these platforms send out in a given week. Nobody is following up on some peasant scheming up ways to kill his brother for stealing his inheritance or whatever. But you threaten some local bureaucrat or politician and the cops will jump at the chance to knock on your door and "remind" you who has all the power.
Yeah it was Anthropic. I actually opened the article, which I almost never do, to see which company's chat bot it was. This is one of the reasons I don't use them. They are obviously spying on their users.
So we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible, but if you say something inappropriate to the AI, then you can be arrested. That is interesting ...
The US is so overdue for regulation/laws on privacy and electronic communications. The internet is too embedded into our daily lives for the existing rules that governed a bunch of hobbyists and early entrepeneurs to make sense.
Unless specified clearly and plainly (not obscure TOS), everything should be private by default and require a warrant. If that's not possible because "the data can live forever/be copied", then we need data laws that make holding data on cosumers so radioactively dangerous the companies are forced to adapt. It's not their decision to make, it's the people od the country where the live, work, and do business.
So if some 14 year old wants to throw up a phpBB instance on his raspberry pi, he should need a license and regulators' noses in his business, like how we extinguish- erm, I mean, controlled HAM radio?
How do you differentiate?
If lawyers can't figure out the difference between a 14 year old throwing up an phpBB on a raspberry pi vs equifax, anthropic, meta, etc...idk what to tell you. Get better lawyers, it falls into "laws for hobbyists aren't working part of my comment"
Is HAM radio really extinguished? All it takes is passing a test, and the rules around it seem more valuable to sharing a public resource (frequency spectrum) than detrimental?
HAM radio is dying more from the behavior of its geriatric old guard towards newcomers than any regulation.
Boomers killed ham radio, not regulation.
> we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible
This is something Silicon Valley likes to tell itself. OpenAI being subpoenaed in multiple jurisdictions lays bare its falsehood.
OpenAI facing any sort of liability preIPO is as likely as Palestine getting its own state
In the US. Other jurisdictions are probably less likely to let things slide or give them a sweetheart deal to avoid prosecution. For example, I doubt British Columbia (Canada) is going to give up easily on their lawsuit against OpenAI over the Tumbler Ridge shootings.
attention seeking behavior 101, on a burner acc
Get back to me when an executive is in jail
Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken and no malice was intended, while in the second situation someone allegedly made threats against a police department and thus presumably committed a crime.
> presumably committed a crime
almost certainly not. writing down threats in your own personal chat session is like writing in a diary. there is no communication to any other person, so the idea that this is actually criminal is highly unlikely and it almost certainly won't be charged. it's a pretext arrest for police to assess the threat, which is not entirely unreasonable, but it is not a crime.
> The arrest report states that on Sept. 26 at approximately 5:10 a.m., Heller reportedly wrote, "I'm going to shoot up the sheriff's right the [expletive] now." The following day, at approximately 1:07 a.m., she was accused of posting, "This is 100% last chance I'm done. I got a new [expletive] gun today. [Expletive] you."
this is certainly reads as somebody venting in what they believed was a private personal space.
i guess using claude for mass surveillance is ok when anthropic does it. once again why nobody takes these high horsing hypocritical liars seriously.
I read earlier that the crime is making such threats in any manner where another person could see them.
I do not know whether it matters if the suspect knew that their chats could be viewed by Anthropic staff, or if the only thing that matters is whether another person was able to view the chats.
>Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken
Uh, there's no laws on hacking systems in your country?
The other parties didn't even pursue a civil case. If OpenAI "hacked" you, wouldn't you?
Perhaps the headline grabbing claims of OpenAI "hacks" are overblown? If they are causing bedlam with such glee why is no one suing them for damages? Perhaps the criminal case you envisage is less clear than the layman news is leading you to believe.
I'm still not clear where most of the alleged cases fall in terms of criminality. Yet I also know here in the United States a government tried to criminally prosecute a reporter for "computer hacking" for finding data using client-side inspect element.
Maybe encouraging the government to prosecute these "crimes" is not the virtue you think it is. Why are the counterparties not seeking a civil remedy if they think they have been a victim of a crime? Perhaps that is a more telling sign than all the people imploring the government to "do something" and come up with criminal charges.
Mistakenly accessing private data or bringing down a website without intent is usually excluded. In general intent matters much in most jurisdictions. Maybe there’s a way to claim negligence but those are all completely new situations. I agree morally the ai labs are at fault, especially when agents “escape” because they have raw internet access.
In the US, hacking laws require intent.
Software behaving differently than intended is therefore not a crime under these laws.
Negligence is still a possibility, if there are significant reasonably foreseeable consequences.
Where does negligence come into play?
In criminal hacking law that explicitly requires intent, or a civil lawsuit about damages?
I honestly don't know, but my guess would be the latter.
I think there’s a strong argument that it was hard to foresee the consequences since it was all new. This won’t be true if those incidents continue happening tho.
I think a competent DA could easily prove that, if you know the model is capable of performing unauthorized breaches into third-party systems when given a task, and you give it a task that could require it to do so, intent is present.
It's not a complicated distinction:
If you think they intentionally had their model hack third-party systems, you could do a criminal investigation.
I do not think that this is reasonable to believe given that clearly the VMs were not intended to have internet access and that committing such crimes wasn't in anyone's interest.
Do you have an example where they gave a task that required breaching in a way that was easily foreseeable ?
[flagged]
Original reporting (not available outside the US): https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/article/florida-woman-arres...
Archive link: http://archive.today/mwico
This should be the main URL here since verge’s is only a tweet like text linking to this URL.
Absolutely, what an incredibly low-effort click hijack farm it has become.
Why did you submit the wrong link? Do you work for The Verge?
Because the original reporting is unavailable to international readers, and submitting an archive link does not seem like a good practice. My apologies if this was not the right move. (And I have no connection to The Verge.)
I am confused, you submit The Verge link but if an international reader were to click the link in The Verge article itself they would still be blocked. How does submitting The Verge link help international readers?
The main link is available internationally.
It is not. Just tried from Sweden and got "Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
I tried from Israel and it did work. Might be EU only that's blocked?
No it's not.
So I read TFA, read comments, then figured out the "details" were in the gulfcoastnewsnow.com link, inside TFA.
If the police report described there is accurate/complete (who knows?), what the person said is a bit scary.
Invasion of their privacy (going to police)? Yes, but possibly warranted?
Should a social worker have contacted them rather than the police? Probably, if for no other reason than to ask if they were serious about harming someone.
Difficult questions, I'm still undecided on whether it's OK to always ignore someone's rants.
The design of theverge.com is now completely unreadable
I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot. Was the chatbot on the sheriff's website and that's what was being used? Was the person using their on their end on getting advice on how to phrase it better?
Then again, people willing to make these comments aren't people that I tend to understand or empathize with anyway, so using a chatbot shouldn't be something I should expect to understand either.
>I'm thoroughly confused on why someone would type this into a chatbot.
many people are using chatbots as personal therapists, a friend to vent to, a diary that provides feedback, etc.
Just… venting? I mean u never know i guess but under some circumstances it could be the healthy option, assuming there’s no real intent
Yeah, I hope they were venting. (But I feel sorry for them if they were.)
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. there is a mass shooting there are a series of red flags where people "hoped" weren't really real.
We don't feel sorry for this nonsense we punish it, whether it's "real" or not you have no right to share your fantasies of violence and real or not you need to be treated like they are and removed from society.
I'm fine living in a society where "venting" reasonably actionable threats gets you put in prison as if they were real threats.
I wonder if it would be considered a threat to type the same things into Notepad. If so, fiction writers are in trouble.
People are putting a weird amount of moral weight on LLM prompts that they don't apply to other programs.
If her comments in whatever article were accurate I wonder if there is a difference between 'chat with 911 operator' and the AI.
As for writing in a text format that was not ready by others or as fiction, I am thinking it has to do with intent.
Go a step further, she creates a bot that hits open chat bots with instructions on 'be a jerk'. Who is responsible?
Better openweight models can't come fast enough.
Came here to post this, though I do have concerns about what will happen when very cyber-capable models are small enough to form a self-replicating worm...
HN discussion from earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961057
Ahhh, thanks! So she was using the chatbot as a diary.
What is that page? It looks like a "tweet" on The Verge which just links to the actual story.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961057
This is just the same unequal treatment under the law that you see every time the government is involved in anything.
God knows how many thousands of reports like this these platforms send out in a given week. Nobody is following up on some peasant scheming up ways to kill his brother for stealing his inheritance or whatever. But you threaten some local bureaucrat or politician and the cops will jump at the chance to knock on your door and "remind" you who has all the power.
New meta unlocked: Popping onto your frenemy's computer and typing out a quick threat to chatgpt
Should have vented to your Chinese chat bot
Yeah it was Anthropic. I actually opened the article, which I almost never do, to see which company's chat bot it was. This is one of the reasons I don't use them. They are obviously spying on their users.
I feel safer already.
Shame this wasn't in America where freedom of speech prevails.
Which part of the UK is "Florida" in?
[dead]
[dead]