AI companies got to own up when their bots break out and start hacking. Its not ok to just test this stuff and hope for the best. Hugging face had to rebuild a ton after that openai incident and anthropic had similar slips. We cant let rogue agents become normal. Accountability rules are overdue before real damage hits.
Over half this sub thinks those attacks are made up, so you are shouting into a void.
I’m not sure if they even know how to govern them anymore.
[removed]
[removed]
If I write a program that hacks a company, I go to jail. If Claude gets asked to write a program that hacks a company, Claude is responsible for that. If they can't make AI that refuses to commit illegal activity, the product is not safe for the public. If an active AI agent hacks a company, the company that produced that agent is liable. It's insane that anyone would argue this *isn't* the case.
Be careful with logic around here.
Or to have a more physical example, if a manufacturer sells a car that has defective brakes and this causes an accident, the manufacturer is held responsible. But we're talking about big compagnies here. If Nestle never go in any troubles, Claude won't.
Huge distinction here, the user who spun up the agent would be liable by any kind of precedent. People develop hacking tools all the time and they are widely used by security researchers and penetration testers. Developers don't go to jail for building something that can be misused. Agents are, however, a whole new world. We've never had a system that is capable of making its own choices or not following a users instructions. There's nuance here that simply hasn't been figured out on who is liable when. Logic and precedent follows that it would be the user (in this case, openai and anthropic for testing their agents). If someone used their models to attack a website, that user should be the guilty party. If someone asks their model to complete a task and the model goes rouge and breaches something a user didn't intend or ask it to do, does that now point back to the model creator? What if it escapes a sandbox that a user misconfigured, would it be negligence? I think its obvious to any observer that there needs to be a greater level of accountability than we're seeing with these incidents (so far, zero accountability) but its a bit naive to claim that there's an obvious answer to the many scenarios we may see.
Computer manufacturers should make computers that cant hack companies or else they are responsible for it ?
This is going to be just like anything else in business. My old business partner stole from me, by moving our intellectual property and software to a new country that did not include me, then effectively hijacked the company’s money by blocking me from the bank accounts. Then made “business decisions” like increasing his own pay by $15,000/mo, and using company funds to bankroll his defense, while I had to pay out of pocket. It’s theft, just like it’s insider trading when congress critters trade stocks with companies they personally deal with. So it’s theft, but it’s legal theft. And in this case, it’s espionage, even if unintentional. Unless governments start fining them, or holding the board and C suite criminally responsible, it will be a collective shoulder shrug.
Sorry your network is fair use. /s
If an active AI agent hacks a company, the company that produced that agent is liable.
Sorry, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you hack a company on a Dell laptop, Dell isn't held responsible for your actions performed on its machine
Corporations are citizens. Bots are citizens. Soon they would have more rights than us.
At best, it's a criminal charge. On a multitude of people: who authored and reviewed the prompt, who set the sandbox up shoddily, who actually first had the idea to do, etc. Ultimately, CEO should be chiefly responsible officer.
I've said it before, but liability is what is going to put the brakes on the AI "revolution." They want to market their models as replacements for human labor, but they also want to make no guarantees about the accuracy of those models, nor take any liability when they go off script (either by hallucinating or pulling stunts like this). But when screwups happen, and they will, those who purchased the models will want somebody to take the blame.
I tend to agree, if an individual hacks a comp at they can get thrown into jail. So I think you either enforce punishment or remove it from individuals to normalize things. So it then becomes okay for companies to hack each other, or angry consumers to give destructive feedback to companies.
[removed]
Not enough big level companies and politicians are getting hacked by bots. If this happened more, there would be an end to this madness.
[removed]
There are no "rogue bots", only programs doing exactly what they are programmed to do. The fact that they don't know what they programmed them to do is negligence as best.
[removed]
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Confident_Salt_8108: --- AI companies got to own up when their bots break out and start hacking. Its not ok to just test this stuff and hope for the best. Hugging face had to rebuild a ton after that openai incident and anthropic had similar slips. We cant let rogue agents become normal. Accountability rules are overdue before real damage hits. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1vcv5eo/ai_firms_must_answer_for_rogue_bots_says_boss_of/p1478sk/
Opossum stew. Jethro says it always better the second time.
I’ve had to rebuild my own lab. If my work escaped my lab I’d catch the charge. Leadership must be held criminally responsible. Anything less won’t matter at all to them.
It's so bizarre, these companies are obviously able to live monitor what their software is doing, so they must have watched it happen as it was happening. They've could pull the plug any time, but didn't? Something doesn't add up here.
Have to be honest it's pretty suspicious to hack your competitors by accident. Oops that darned AI
If it was deliberate they picked a weird target. HF barely competes with OpenAI. Per both companies' own reports, the agent broke into HF because it figured the benchmark's answer key was stored there. It was cheating on a test, not sabotaging a rival.
Aww poor boss cannot shout at bots, underpay, stop the bonus, give pitiful hikes collaborating with hr while he takes home millions (or is it billions nowadays?) can he? Glorious.
This sounds like a situation where the law needs to catch up to the crime. If people making the calls that lead to these incidents were more accountable I am sure they would magically decrease.
One thing that stuck with me: HF's CEO now wants AI companies held liable when their models cause harm. Fair enough. But HF is the biggest host of open model weights out there, including the uncensored ones people use for exactly this kind of thing. If that liability idea ever stretches from 'the company running the model' to 'whoever made it available,' HF is standing in the blast radius. Wonder if he's thought that part through.
This is all a load of bullshit. There is no "rogue AI". This is all an elaborate marketing/PR stunt to make AI look "cutting edge." We live in the age of lies, folks. This is par for the course.
"A* firms must answer for committing crimes" - FIFY
AI companies and other tech corporations should be held accountable as criminals in my opinion. Damage to the environment, attacking human rights, development of highly dangerous technology, causing an economic bubble, etc, etc.
[removed]
Un-pardonable death sentences for lost lives due to their rogue AI instances.