Plenty of hackers were locked up who did altogether not that much damage too, the reason why people are upset is because it feels like OpenAI is laughing in our faces, basically saying they're above the law, while using this as a marketing campaign to pump up their upcoming IPO.
So your position is that in the past the government mistreated various individuals thus you also want the government to mistreat openai employees today? That hardly seems reasonable.
> So your position is that in the past the government mistreated various individuals thus you also want the government to mistreat openai employees today?
The hackers of the past often did it for curiosity without a profit motive.
OpenAI is a for profit multi billion dollar corporation doing this for a profit motive so yes they should face consequences.
These incidents are not unexpected in the way OpenAI frames it either. Isn't it curious my agents are not wrecking havoc around the internet? It's because the harness I am using prevents them doing so and because I don't train and instruct them to do so.
OpenAI is using a set of non-constrained models, (unlike what the public gets) and a set of harnesses with extremely wide permissions running inside extremely leaky sandboxes using models trained on finding and executing exploits. This is not an accident. Certainly not by this point.
Nobody is talking about jailing OpenAI employees at this stage, usually corporations of this sort are fined. If they were fined for these 'misalignment' incidents, suddenly their sandboxes and generally lax approach would improve overnight.
Otherwise they'll continue doing this because they know Cyberdyne Systems didn't have a shortage of investors.
I'd start with fines. But if they continue with this I don't see why it couldn't result in jail time for multiple people. The biggest responsibility is of course with the CEO and C suite. They are ultimately responsible for what the ship does.
Of course then there's the question of why was such a leaky harness and sandbox used, in what way was it tested/not tested, did the model used have the usual 'hacking' safeguards that the public models do and if not, who made the call to use an unconstrained model and a harness with seemingly unlimited permissions and who approved it?
This can all be investigated and we can get to the bottom of who exactly needs to be held accountable in what way, be it I think if you start with fines the harnesses, sandboxes and models would stop doing this magically overnight.
Isn't it curious that none of these rouge agents booked a 5 star hotel for every OpenAI employee for a year on Sam Altman's credit card yet for example?
> We don't hold individuals inside big companies criminally liable for actions the company takes, or even that they take on behalf of the company.
So the leadership of Enron, FTX or Theranos were not liable for the actions their company took?
As an employee of a company, you can be held liable for the actions you oversaw in pretty much all Western countries. It has to be proven fraud, insider trading etc. not an ugly PowerPoint of course.
How about leadership of construction companies that were found to be violating safety standards or owners of establishments not following fire safety standards?
> Telling someone to do a bad job isn't criminal
No, but we're talking about telling someone to do a job that you know will likely result in criminal activity or may do so with high probability due to inadequate safeguards.
I suggest you stop quipping and start reading, who knows maybe OpenAI will eventually hire you.
