Commenters identify structural liability diffusion and legal gaps
3 Yesterday 11:13 AM · 1d ago · 7 comments · 1 source · development 3 of 6
Multiple commenters note that AI companies may deliberately use shell companies and subcontractors to obscure responsibility, and that the legal system has not yet caught up with the technology's architecture. One commenter observes that OpenAI's process involving external RL-environment companies and subprocesses creates chains of liability that are difficult to assign.
“The juridical process is not caught up with this technology yet. You have OpenAI, launching a process, which is handled through an external RL-environment company which then launches a subprocess that ends up hacking somewhere.”
augment_meMorten Rasmussen AuthorAnthropic AI companyOpenAI AI companyGoogle AI companyMeta AI company
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 7 voices · verbatim
-
The real answer is that except in the case of OpenAI, the AI companies aren’t actually themselves doing the hacking. It’s a company called Irregular that did the hacking. The company used AI models to do it; it told AI models it was a CTF exercise in a controlled environment but it was actually the real Internet. If AI companies can be charged for…
-
Are any victims calling for prosecution?It’d be a waste of tax payer money. The companies who were hacked are just directly receiving restitution behind closed doors. Unless they are unhappy there’s no reason to bring the courts into it.I completely agree that proper safeguards were not in place. But response is happening just not in public…
-
I think these companies very much want to assign responsibility to an entity we can't meaningfully jail or fine. I think it may sometimes make sense to claim model provider negligence instead of operator responsibility, and user intent can likely be easily ascertained by reading the conversation logs. In a case where a company used its own model…
-
The juridical process is not caught up with this technology yet.You have OpenAI, launching a process, which is handled through an external RL-environment company which then launches a subprocess that ends up hacking somewhere. If there are consequences at any point for this, you can input another shell company, and then another third party, etc…
-
The argument laid out in this post very definitely is not how "intent" works in US criminal law. Under CFAA, they had to have wanted to break into the systems that were attacked; it is not enough to demonstrate that they built a system recklessly.
-
You know very well, that if me or you had our LLM hack into some company, without us prompting it to, maybe we're pentesting our internal network and it 'hallucinates' we'd be in handcuffs.
-
These are the same companies claiming their AIs are sentient and spell the end of the world unless the government stops them from doing it.They are at the very least grossly negligent.
All 6 developments of Why AI companies aren't being charged for hacking, explained →
Hacker NewsNewswiresMastodon