logo

Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

Posted by reasonableklout |6 hours ago |50 comments

skinfaxi 6 hours ago[4 more]

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

Bender 5 hours ago[1 more]

Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

No, AI companies should be treated like any other company. If their product is causing damages or loss of life it should be handled just like any other company that has a malfunctioning product that is causing damages or loss of life. If one day androids using AI go rogue the military can get things under control and the company can be taken offline until root causes are determined and resolved. Repeat offenders can be annexed under eminent domain, liquidated and victims paid out. Businesses must be permitted to fail. No special treatment for inept leaders of AI companies and no excuses. If the argument is that something has been created that is too complicated to understand then take it away from them until they are not only qualified but also act like responsible grown-ups.

whycombinetor 6 hours ago[2 more]

"The law in America relies on intentionality, notes Rune Kvist, head of Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company, which insures AI firms. If no human intended to hack anyone, no crime can have happened. The ability to sue for damages is limited too."

This is sloppy. Criminal negligence exists (although some crimes do require intent). And civil tort certainly doesn't require intent.

FeteCommuniste 6 hours ago[2 more]

> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame.

Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

childofhedgehog 6 hours ago

arjie 6 hours ago[1 more]

Sort of like how we treat pitbulls perhaps? It’s not the itty bitty GPT-5.6 Astra that did the hacking. It’s the owner who didn’t train it well! Poor model so sad, we should give it a nice open space and all the GPUs it wants to do what it wants.

specproc 6 hours ago

These things are very much weapons. Imagine a collection of data centers, pointed at an adversary.

xiphias2 5 hours ago

Exploitbench in itself isn’t that different from gain of function research in computer code, I can imagine the next being ExploitAndCopyYourselfBench.

neves 5 hours ago

If an Anthropic employee did this, he would be in jail.

5 hours ago

Comment deleted

aetherspawn 6 hours ago

They were surely prompted to do these things.

measurablefunc 6 hours ago

Autonomous hacking is an oxymoronic phrase. Someone is running the algorithm & keeping tabs on it b/c hacking is an activity w/ an intention to gain access to privileged information which is often protected by network firewalls & at rest encryption.

Sui_Kate 5 hours ago

[flagged]

ihsw 6 hours ago

Comment deleted