6 ms·

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

by htrp 26d ago

d_silin 26d ago
But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.
- iAMkenough 26d ago
  He’s paid the piper, he’s fine for now. If anything, he’ll buy a Supreme Court ruling that he can’t be held personally liable for what his AI does.
  - solid_fuel 26d ago
    I’m sure Thomas needs an upgraded RV, so that’s easily handled. And the rest of the conservative ‘justices’ seem happy to betray the constitution for free.
    - deleted 26d ago
      [deleted]
user43928 26d ago
Is has nothing to do with copyright. I understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here. An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant. So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.
- mutinyy 26d ago
  Willful blindness can satisfy the criminal intent requirement. Might be hard to prove, but it's possible.
overfeed 26d ago
It's the lack of personhood rather than inability to produce copyrightable material. However, the companies controlling the AI systems have legal personhood and should absolutely be charged for criminality that transpires under their watch or at their behest.
Zambyte 26d ago
Guns also can't hold copyright; can they be charged with crime? (hint: it's the operator who gets charged).
- BorisMelnik 26d ago
  but not the gun manufacturers
  - josefresco 26d ago
    Wasn't it both in this case? The gun maker, when testing their gun, shot someone.
  - 1659447091 26d ago
    When it is the gun they make that is itself responsible, yes. See Sig Sauer P320 malfunction or lawsuits[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits
    - inigyou 25d ago
      There are known standards for how a gun should perform. This probably wouldn't go the same for LLMs, since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable.
      - 1659447091 25d ago
        > since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable "anyone" is doing a lot of work there, also what is "a serious manner"? There are plenty of people who use it quite a lot and end up in a mental health crisis, sometimes from trying to use it to solve a mental health crisis; or find themselves in something equivalent to people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes and all the fallout that causes in their lives. You may understand why it is not a good idea to use them that way, I may too, but I think you underestimate the general populations (outside HN) misunderstanding of LLMs, especially in light of the marketing stunts these companies themselves pull.

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

by htrp 26d ago

Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

iAMkenough 26d ago
He’s paid the piper, he’s fine for now. If anything, he’ll buy a Supreme Court ruling that he can’t be held personally liable for what his AI does.
- solid_fuel 26d ago
  I’m sure Thomas needs an upgraded RV, so that’s easily handled. And the rest of the conservative ‘justices’ seem happy to betray the constitution for free.
  - deleted 26d ago
    [deleted]

user43928 26d ago

Is has nothing to do with copyright. I understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here. An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant. So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.

mutinyy 26d ago
Willful blindness can satisfy the criminal intent requirement. Might be hard to prove, but it's possible.

overfeed 26d ago

It's the lack of personhood rather than inability to produce copyrightable material. However, the companies controlling the AI systems have legal personhood and should absolutely be charged for criminality that transpires under their watch or at their behest.

Zambyte 26d ago

Guns also can't hold copyright; can they be charged with crime? (hint: it's the operator who gets charged).

BorisMelnik 26d ago
but not the gun manufacturers
- josefresco 26d ago
  Wasn't it both in this case? The gun maker, when testing their gun, shot someone.
- 1659447091 26d ago
  When it is the gun they make that is itself responsible, yes. See Sig Sauer P320 malfunction or lawsuits[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Lawsuits
  - inigyou 25d ago
    There are known standards for how a gun should perform. This probably wouldn't go the same for LLMs, since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable.
    - 1659447091 25d ago
      > since anyone using them in such a serious manner knows they are quite unpredictable "anyone" is doing a lot of work there, also what is "a serious manner"? There are plenty of people who use it quite a lot and end up in a mental health crisis, sometimes from trying to use it to solve a mental health crisis; or find themselves in something equivalent to people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes and all the fallout that causes in their lives. You may understand why it is not a good idea to use them that way, I may too, but I think you underestimate the general populations (outside HN) misunderstanding of LLMs, especially in light of the marketing stunts these companies themselves pull.