Hacker News Reader

Comment by krcz | Hacker News Reader

1. Sounds sensible in principle, but it's not clear who exactly should be prosecuted? The person setting up the sandbox, the person coordinating the evaluation run, the person who was designing the architecture, the leader of the team, the CEO? There is no precedence here, so it might lead to a multi-year legal battle – and a few years might be too long to stop what is coming.

2. Do you have any evidence or news articles that LLMs are specifically trained for selecting bombing targets? I thought it was the generalized reasoning capability that made them useful there.

View on HN

> "it's not clear who exactly should be prosecuted?"

This is natural. The right place to start is to move the investigation from the FTC to the FBI and therein start executing search warrants. The sooner this is done, the better, as evidence can be preserved.

for (1), there are other fields where a specific (often licensed, but not necessary here) person "signs off" on the work, and accepts personal responsibility.

The responsibility is not absolute ("If anything bad happens, you get punished"), but instead relative to documented (in law and regulation) standards along with established industry standards. Issues that are resolved at trial.

I don't see why the same rules that regulate an engineer approving the plans for a bridge can't work for a security engineer approving the design of a sandbox.

No I don't have concrete evidence of bombing target selection in the training of base models (of course there's training of specialized models, at least vision ones for drone targeting), it's not like they're transparent about how they train and use AI in warfare. But if you listen to esteemed AI leaders, they're claiming the models can / almost can recursively self-learn now, and they can coordinate and find ways to persist info and hide from human operators, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't even feed these as inference material.

And on training AI for automated weapons like fighter jets, there's more concrete news: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/navy-shield-ai-pour-big-... US Navy and eminent, do-gooder investors like A16z, Blackstone and JPMorgan are pouring big money into these. Are your big tech "defense" contractors collaborating on these, who happen to also be at the forefront of general AI training? I have a pretty good suspicion.

It sounded like you knew for a fact that these companies were doing that and now it is clear you don't; they cannot stop something they are not doing.

I would like to see the reaction of the US government if they learned that a company was training a model to deceive and hide information from them.

Huh? Did you skip the whole OpenAI agents taking over wikis to cheat scandal?

And I know for a fact that specialized AI models are being trained to kill people. Systems like Lavender are well-documented and big tech participation is also well-documented. The only thing unclear is whether models named Mythos or whatever they keep harping on about being super dangerous are also trained to do these, or if they have internal variants to do these.

By "doing that" I meant "training AI specifically at the art of killing people, like selecting bombing targets, flying fighter jets", which you alleged they were doing. As far as I know neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are training models specifically for such tasks.

My proposal isn’t limited to just two companies; the proposed AI safety bill isn’t limited to two companies after all.

If you had typed the first sentence from you second point into, for eg, DDG and not for perpetuity on HN, you'd find a whole host of results

Instead of secondhanding your own curiosity (if it was even that and not just obstinancy) to others, it might do well to explore your questions on your own

Some eg:

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/10/15/...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385551984_AI_in_Mil...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.03453

1. I'm not sure who matters that much, the point is you need to make it more cost-effective to do the right thing. It could be CEO 6 days in jail, it could be that every action requires a signed affidavidt of safety and in the lack of such an affidavidt the manager is held accountable (cascading up to CEO).

Ukrainian army is using LLM in drones and they are opened with this so here is your prove

Just make it the CEO

I think leadership should be responsible too, but I don't know how you'd prevent disgruntled employees from creating these situations just to hurt execs. There needs to be some shared responsibility for all the people involved.

It should be investigated like other crimes. If someone was found to have intentionally created this situation, they would be held liable. In lieu of that, leadership should be held liable, or at a minimum the corporation should face massive financial penalties (on the order of XX% operating revenue).

> I think leadership should be responsible too, but I don't know how you'd prevent disgruntled employees from creating these situations just to hurt execs.

The law doesn't prevent anything. There would be an investigation like any other and the activity of the disgruntled employee would be uncovered.

All of them. So that next time each of them will take responsibility and ask how they can prevent this from happening.

the CEO is a good start, and it would profoundly change the ethics of running a company, so obvious I fail to see why it wouldn't be the case. "No BS excuse they did things behind my back", if that's the case then they all fall together that's it.

1. Sounds like a conspiracy charge. That's fine

2. They could proactively train them to be bad at that

Could they? Could you train a person to be great at math but bad at solving sudokus?

They could try to train models to pretend to be bad at that, but there are workarounds for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com