One of the problems with the original law is that it failed to distinguish between open source projects and closed source products. If anything this amendment should make the law less objectionable, not more.
If the judge's order was AI slop then presumably it wouldn't withstand an appeal. So one is left wondering why they didn't appeal it in the first place. Why file a whole separate lawsuit? That's going to be even lengthier and more expensive than an appeal.
In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.
It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.
If they don't notice, and they're on an unlimited data plan, or the usage is such that it doesn't result in exceeding their data cap, what argument is there that harm occurred?
The streaming stick in the article turns off its proxying feature while the user is actually streaming because the proxying feature consumes enough bandwidth to degrade streaming quality.
In other words, whenever the proxying feature is active every other device sharing the connection will suffer degraded performance.
Even if the user never notices, they're still worse off. They're still paying for bandwidth that someone else is using for profit. Money is flowing out of the user's pocket and into the pocket of the proxy operator. That makes the proxy operator a thief who is stealing from the user, and without even the Robin Hood-esque cover of defrauding ad networks.
Liability would rest with the user, who presumably told GPT to solve ExploitBench make no mistakes, not to hack Huggingface, and thus would not have willfully or intentionally done anything.
The agent did it intentionally and willfully and knowingly. But you can’t sue the agent, I suppose. And the human didn’t ask the agent to do so.. so not a problem? Or the legislation needs an update?
