9 ms·

Yes. But for someone to be negligent they have to violate known and/or obvious rules. There are no established rules about how to handle AI isolation. The fact

Yes. But for someone to be negligent they have to violate known and/or obvious rules. There are no established rules about how to handle AI isolation. The fact that something had undesirable outcome doesn't automatically make it negligence or attack.

DrewADesign 4d ago
Specifically what legal type of negligence are you referring to and how does that known or obvious rule fit into the standard legal tests? Does that known of obvious rule have to be a law? There were no ‘rules’ about attaching strings from your doorknob to the trigger of a shotgun and pointing the gun at your door, but when someone died from just that, it was pretty famously determined to be negligent.
- scotty79 4d ago
  I'm sure that when someone dies as a result of mishandling of AI, some rules are going to be established. At the latest. We are just very soon. Shotguns and strings and concept of booby trapping were well understood before the rules were established. We are only scraping the surface of what AI is and what it can be capable of. Besides, booby traps are more than negligent, at least in some countries. If you are seeking analogy, radioactivity might be a better one. The rules about handling radioactive materials in the first few decades after its discovery were lax when compared to modern ones and things now considered criminally negligent weren't back then. Maybe in 2050 soemthing what OpenAI did would be considered negligent, but it might have been for the reasons you might not expect. For example it might be mandatory to test new containment dedicated for further tests you should first spend at least 10 million dollars of compute for AI to try to break out of it. Or it might be illegal to use closed source software as any part of containment. Rules that we end up with might be compeltely different from what we imagine them today. Acusing openai of attack or of criminal negligence at this point is like accusing Skłodowska-Curie that your wine didin't come out great because her exepriments killed some yeast.
  - DrewADesign 4d ago
    I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved— the gun case being an important point in our legal system’s handling of negligence — and your answer basically translates into you not knowing. Negligence is not exclusively criminal in the US legal system, but the underlying concept of negligence is pretty consistent. If you’re not simply toeing the line for OpenAI and want to move beyond your vibes-based understanding of the legal concept, there’s a lot of info out there, including the full test, the reasonable person concept, and very relevant examples of how this worked in real trials. I’m not interested in debating whatever your personal take on negligence means here because it’s largely irrelevant.
    - scotty79 4d ago
      > I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved Perhaps you should ask a lawyer from the country that the precise laws of interest you. I'm not one. I know only that there are no laws about AI containment yet and AIs are not guns. You could as well refer to what consists of negligence when it comes to backyard pools. I'm also not really interested in discussing particular laws of US because China will overtake it in few years and they have a better chance of directing international AI laws. So whatever US comes up with will remain local and increasingly irrelevant.
      - DrewADesign 4d ago
        You’re not interested because you challenged my definition of negligence by inventing some glib pseudo technicality and then got flustered when I asked you to explain how it was rooted in the real world. Sometimes we get caught taking out of our asses. It happens. But I understand you’re just trying to save face so I’ll leave you here to finish that up yourself. Have a good one.
        scotty79 3d ago
        No. Negligence is a concept in all human law systems. Its details vary. You are fixated on the particular one, of the law system that I respect almost the least of the entire world. So I'm not interested because I will never set foot in that country and deficiencies of its laws are a huge factor in that. I don't care about saving my face. I'm an idiot and an ignorant and I don't care. Stop projecting your lack of acceptance of your own limitations on me. Or don't.

DrewADesign 4d ago

Specifically what legal type of negligence are you referring to and how does that known or obvious rule fit into the standard legal tests? Does that known of obvious rule have to be a law? There were no ‘rules’ about attaching strings from your doorknob to the trigger of a shotgun and pointing the gun at your door, but when someone died from just that, it was pretty famously determined to be negligent.

scotty79 4d ago
I'm sure that when someone dies as a result of mishandling of AI, some rules are going to be established. At the latest. We are just very soon. Shotguns and strings and concept of booby trapping were well understood before the rules were established. We are only scraping the surface of what AI is and what it can be capable of. Besides, booby traps are more than negligent, at least in some countries. If you are seeking analogy, radioactivity might be a better one. The rules about handling radioactive materials in the first few decades after its discovery were lax when compared to modern ones and things now considered criminally negligent weren't back then. Maybe in 2050 soemthing what OpenAI did would be considered negligent, but it might have been for the reasons you might not expect. For example it might be mandatory to test new containment dedicated for further tests you should first spend at least 10 million dollars of compute for AI to try to break out of it. Or it might be illegal to use closed source software as any part of containment. Rules that we end up with might be compeltely different from what we imagine them today. Acusing openai of attack or of criminal negligence at this point is like accusing Skłodowska-Curie that your wine didin't come out great because her exepriments killed some yeast.
- DrewADesign 4d ago
  I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved— the gun case being an important point in our legal system’s handling of negligence — and your answer basically translates into you not knowing. Negligence is not exclusively criminal in the US legal system, but the underlying concept of negligence is pretty consistent. If you’re not simply toeing the line for OpenAI and want to move beyond your vibes-based understanding of the legal concept, there’s a lot of info out there, including the full test, the reasonable person concept, and very relevant examples of how this worked in real trials. I’m not interested in debating whatever your personal take on negligence means here because it’s largely irrelevant.
  - scotty79 4d ago
    > I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved Perhaps you should ask a lawyer from the country that the precise laws of interest you. I'm not one. I know only that there are no laws about AI containment yet and AIs are not guns. You could as well refer to what consists of negligence when it comes to backyard pools. I'm also not really interested in discussing particular laws of US because China will overtake it in few years and they have a better chance of directing international AI laws. So whatever US comes up with will remain local and increasingly irrelevant.
    - DrewADesign 4d ago
      You’re not interested because you challenged my definition of negligence by inventing some glib pseudo technicality and then got flustered when I asked you to explain how it was rooted in the real world. Sometimes we get caught taking out of our asses. It happens. But I understand you’re just trying to save face so I’ll leave you here to finish that up yourself. Have a good one.
      - scotty79 3d ago
        No. Negligence is a concept in all human law systems. Its details vary. You are fixated on the particular one, of the law system that I respect almost the least of the entire world. So I'm not interested because I will never set foot in that country and deficiencies of its laws are a huge factor in that. I don't care about saving my face. I'm an idiot and an ignorant and I don't care. Stop projecting your lack of acceptance of your own limitations on me. Or don't.