6 ms·

Who got hacked? Hugging faces Who now owns HF? Nvidia Who supplies hardware to OpenAI? Nvidia Who is now not pressing charges? … This incident is a long way

Who got hacked? Hugging faces Who now owns HF? Nvidia Who supplies hardware to OpenAI? Nvidia Who is now not pressing charges? … This incident is a long way under the carpet.

dwaltrip 4d ago
Can’t a prosecutor charge them regardless?
- lotyrin 4d ago
  Legally, Practically or Politically?
- Towaway69 4d ago
  NAL but I assume that if both sides aren’t interested in a prosecution, it’s an uphill battle for a prosecutor.
  - pants2 4d ago
    Typically yes but given that OpenAI has published enormous official blog posts breaking down their crime, I would think the prosecutor's job is pretty easy.
    - Towaway69 4d ago
      It’s then up to a judge to decide whether thats evidence and whether it’s incriminating. I assume OAI published those details after checking with their legal department. So there’s a good chance that there isn’t a chance for prosecution. Plus they probably published that after knowing that the nvidia/HF deal was happening. So instead this “security incident” should have been spun as OAI is honestly admitting its faults and AI is dangerous and therefore open weight models (hosted ironically by HF) should be banned. That spin didn’t really happen …
- tesnorindian 3d ago
  In Indian legal syatem a case can be filed suo moto by the judges or agencies. You don't require the affected party to sue. Not sure how it works in the US.
  - preg_match 3d ago
    For civil suits, you typically need the affected parties to sue. Otherwise, who claims the damages? But this isn’t just civil, it’s criminal. Hacking is a criminal offense. This could be a CFAA violation. That’s landed people life in prison before. There, you don’t need the victims to be motivated. The federal prosecutors could just go ahead.
cyh555 4d ago
cool, now about Rubygems...
bluegatty 4d ago
It's not 'under the carpet'. HF doesn't want to lay charges against OpenAI and it's totally reasonable. Now - they absolutely should have that right, and I think they do. The issues are 1) OAI it seems was not trying to cause them harm, there wasn't a ton of harm, they are both groups trying to advance AI. One experimenter's lab screwed up next to the other. It's not evil, just irresponsible. 2) HF was fine with the publicity. HF got at least $50M in free attention out of that. It put them on the front pages of news around the world. It put them at the 'centre of the AI drama' and cemented their role among the 'Tech Elite Brands'. And probably some other things. This is one Desperate Housewife or Jersey Shore character 'spilling a drink' on the other. It's probably not intentional, and the ensuing drama is good for both of them.
- Towaway69 3d ago
  I think what you say is right but it’s also a further example of the zero responsibility of silicon valley tech. For the last 20 odd years this excuse-o-rama that covers anything from data leaks to broken software to dystopian social media has been the wind in the sails of big tech. “It’s software therefore we’re not responsible” attitude is wearing thin on many innocent bystanders and I think thats also a justified stance. And it’s not like they didn’t know this could happen, Nick Bostrom talked about exactly these containment failures in his “Superintelligence” book of 2014. So to throw up their hands and say “oh we can’t have known of the dangers” is also sadly untrue.
  - bluegatty 3d ago
    Yes. There should be no doubt at who is culpable here.

Who got hacked? Hugging faces Who now owns HF? Nvidia Who supplies hardware to OpenAI? Nvidia Who is now not pressing charges? … This incident is a long way under the carpet.

dwaltrip 4d ago

Can’t a prosecutor charge them regardless?

lotyrin 4d ago
Legally, Practically or Politically?
Towaway69 4d ago
NAL but I assume that if both sides aren’t interested in a prosecution, it’s an uphill battle for a prosecutor.
- pants2 4d ago
  Typically yes but given that OpenAI has published enormous official blog posts breaking down their crime, I would think the prosecutor's job is pretty easy.
  - Towaway69 4d ago
    It’s then up to a judge to decide whether thats evidence and whether it’s incriminating. I assume OAI published those details after checking with their legal department. So there’s a good chance that there isn’t a chance for prosecution. Plus they probably published that after knowing that the nvidia/HF deal was happening. So instead this “security incident” should have been spun as OAI is honestly admitting its faults and AI is dangerous and therefore open weight models (hosted ironically by HF) should be banned. That spin didn’t really happen …
tesnorindian 3d ago
In Indian legal syatem a case can be filed suo moto by the judges or agencies. You don't require the affected party to sue. Not sure how it works in the US.
- preg_match 3d ago
  For civil suits, you typically need the affected parties to sue. Otherwise, who claims the damages? But this isn’t just civil, it’s criminal. Hacking is a criminal offense. This could be a CFAA violation. That’s landed people life in prison before. There, you don’t need the victims to be motivated. The federal prosecutors could just go ahead.

cyh555 4d ago

cool, now about Rubygems...

bluegatty 4d ago

It's not 'under the carpet'. HF doesn't want to lay charges against OpenAI and it's totally reasonable. Now - they absolutely should have that right, and I think they do. The issues are 1) OAI it seems was not trying to cause them harm, there wasn't a ton of harm, they are both groups trying to advance AI. One experimenter's lab screwed up next to the other. It's not evil, just irresponsible. 2) HF was fine with the publicity. HF got at least $50M in free attention out of that. It put them on the front pages of news around the world. It put them at the 'centre of the AI drama' and cemented their role among the 'Tech Elite Brands'. And probably some other things. This is one Desperate Housewife or Jersey Shore character 'spilling a drink' on the other. It's probably not intentional, and the ensuing drama is good for both of them.

Towaway69 3d ago
I think what you say is right but it’s also a further example of the zero responsibility of silicon valley tech. For the last 20 odd years this excuse-o-rama that covers anything from data leaks to broken software to dystopian social media has been the wind in the sails of big tech. “It’s software therefore we’re not responsible” attitude is wearing thin on many innocent bystanders and I think thats also a justified stance. And it’s not like they didn’t know this could happen, Nick Bostrom talked about exactly these containment failures in his “Superintelligence” book of 2014. So to throw up their hands and say “oh we can’t have known of the dangers” is also sadly untrue.
- bluegatty 3d ago
  Yes. There should be no doubt at who is culpable here.