The agents are clearly not accidentally compromising systems. Seems very easy to trace back the responsible parties here, I really don't put much stock into this argument.
That would be argument for jailing the agent, but that's not really an option. "Jailing the closest person we can jail" also isn't a recognized legal principle. If your dog mauled someone, it'd be hard to argue that the dog didn't intend to maul that person, but you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either.
Edit: the dog will also be taken from you and put down if it is deemed a risk to other people.
Have these labs pay ANYTHING?
You forget the people who have unalived themselves because some LLM told them to do so.
Besides the obvious conversational derail (we were talking about ai hacking up till now), that case is being litigated right now.
At this point it might be fair to say that Open AI is being negligent with a known risk.
I said "you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either". Can you provide examples outside of gross negligence on part of the dog owner?
But negligence seems like exactly what OpenAI and/or their contractors are guilty of anyhow.
> Can you provide examples outside of gross negligence on part of the dog owner?
And the answer is no, I can't. The reason why is because there is essentially no such case. It is basically negligence by definition when your pet hurts someone who didn't cause it directly themselves because it is your responsibility.
So I asked:
> Can you provide an example of where your dog harming someone else is in fact not negligence on your part?
Which is a really easy question to answer and it seems you could not.
See People v. Knoller, 41 Cal. 4th 139 (2007). https://capcentral.org/case_summaries/people-v-knoller/
That's specifically not what the court case says.
>Malice is implied when the killing is proximately
>caused by “ ‘an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life,
>which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct
>endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-knoller-33726
The rest of the court case also mentions a long history of the dog being dangerous and the owner failing to restrain the dog.
“…regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.”
>California Civil Code
>The owner of any dog is liable for the damages ...
How are you still missing the criminal/civil distinction, when it was mentioned in my original comment AND the comment you were replying to?
If I invent a new explosive, I can't blow up a few buildings to advertise it and then claim it was a mistake. Somebody prompted these agents.