Government machines were hacked by computers rented by openai, running openai code.
How is that not a criminal offence I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Comment on An OpenAI agent hacked Medicare. Will anyone be held responsible?
shirro@aussie.zone 3 days ago
AI does not exist. It is just a bunch of numbers and code. We need to stop anthropomorphizing stuff. We are adults, not kids watching Disney animations. A talking parrot is not a person. Cars don’t run over people. Drivers do. Ultimately there is always a person responsible and if they did harm judge them on whether it was intentional or negligent.
Please push back on this bullshit. It was bad enough that we went with the auto manufacturers line on car “accidents” for years.
Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 days ago
I agree insofar as AI companies and individuals should be held responsible for the actions their agents take. But it’s dangerous to frame this as just another “bad guys with guns” type scenario where there is no problem if you’re a responsible user.
The people who have created this technology don’t understand everything about it or even how it works because they have prioritised rapid advancement over all else in an attempt to “win” the race. It is a fundamentally dangerous and unreliable technology that needs to be put on ice until we have developed a clear framework that addresses all the real and current harms and prepares us for a future where it is embedded in daily life.
It doesn’t matter if AI is actually conscious or turns into Skynet. None of that is required for significant harms or even existential-level risk. The mainstream conversation really needs to move on from these binary, hyperbolic positions and start focusing on what is actually happening right now.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Seriously, this stupid fucking semantics game from people who know jack shit about the history or structure of the field while society is crumbling around us are infuriating. The term was created early in the life of the field in 1956 and was quickly widely adopted. AI as a field exists to study tasks that computers can do that would typically be considered in the domain of humans or other living beings, i.e. requiring intelligence; the term wasn’t created to trick people.
That’s why when you play a game and do a frustrating escort quest because the character you’re escorting behaves like someone with severe brain damage, “the AI sucks”. Not because you think there is (or is supposed to be) conscious superintelligence inside Bilbip Flipflop who’s supposed to be following you to the next checkpoint according to a bunch of conditionals executing on your 2004 IBM, but because that coordinated act of reacting to the world around them is supposed to be emulating what a real person would do given that role.
If you want to piss around with Philosophy 101 about about the nebulous nature of the word intelligence and how much that translates to some concept of “true”, conscious understanding versus simply interpreting external data to achieve tasks, then live your best life. But it’s clearly a meaningless distraction when the world is fucking on fire.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Very true. Unfortunately, the discourse is being shit up by some of the most ignorant and, frankly, stupid people in our society whose only real goal here is to make themselves feel smart on social media. Not everyone needs to be an expert on AI, I’m certainly not, but we should all at least be making an effort to read and learn about what is actually happening in reality before jumping in with some vitriolic one-liner or hot take designed to go viral and get attention. It has become a binary, us vs them political/ideological debate like any other and that is significantly impairing humanity’s broader understanding of the real problems and slowing our response to them.
bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 3 days ago
No no no. This is the wrong approach.
If corporations are people (in the US: supreme court decision on Citizens United) then the outputs of these AIs are speech. We may not like it, but it’s where we are.
It’s kind of wild to me that we watched the whole AI development cycle, but when it started getting squirrelly in terms of output, now we have to hedge. And, somehow, doom and gloom is the paid diversion.
Maybe this is a massive failure, and people calling for caution because of the doom and gloom are marketing. It is designed to make people stop hating on the corporations who mindlessly pushed this anti-human trash.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social 3 days ago
If I’m not misreading this… I believe the article says the same thing you are saying.
AI can’t be held accountable, but it seems weird to hold an AI user as “negligent” if they simply ask for info and the AI goes and does a crime to get it.
The next obvious target is the AI vendor, which certainly makes sense to me. But I can only imagine the legal difficulties getting a judgment there without additional legislation, which seems to be the point of the article.
kingofras@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If you are sloppy with gun safety, and your fully loaded ak47 drops on the floor and mows down a class of school kids, we wouldn’t persecute the weapons manufacturer either.
Impronoucabl@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Why not both? If the manufacturer doesn’t install a safety switch that allows a foreseeable harm to occur, I’d say they’re partially responsible too.
vonbaronhans@midwest.social 3 days ago
I don’t know the proper legal term, but there’s something like a reasonable expectation for how a product will be used.
Take something like autonomous vehicles. If a passenger hops in a Waymo and says, “take me to the airport”, it’s hardly reasonable to hold the rider responsible if the cab mows down 15 children on the way, but it does seem like something Waymo, the corporation, should be held responsible for. It is very reasonable to expect Waymo to have put precautions in place to prevent that sort of thing.
The question is, when it comes to modern AI agents, it’s kind of the wild west, legally speaking. Can we hold an LLM developer responsible for harm their AI agents do? I can see a lot of room for that, but it seems like the legal system just isn’t there yet.
kingofras@lemmy.world 3 days ago
In this case we don’t even have to worry about that distinction because the sloppy human operator and the manufacturer that’s developing one of the most consequential technologies in human history are both behaving like they’re the top cast of the next Mad Max instalment.
They are both being reckless and they have proven understanding how how dangerous it is.
The way systems will infinitely less societal consequences are tested is by building a replica interal sandbox of the real world with fake medicare records and then see if the stupid thing would go out and ignore guardrails and do the hacking.
The culpability lies solely in how (insert whatever machine here) is operated. These fuckwits are ignoring so many established precedents on testing safety established in all kinds of risk-to-life fields like medical science, aerospace engineering, car safety testing, plenty of conventional IT systems.
If the PM had a backbone he would issue a national security order banning all AI agent traffic and block access to open AI until the investigation is concluded.
fakemeat@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Sig P320