Concerns about the accountability of AI labs and the safety of their tools

Signals over time

3 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 2 days. Confidence: low.

What people are saying Observed

• “It's very important to not be completely devoid of imagination. It is quite possible to create agents today that can do all the things that you are saying "it's still not". "tools are acting on behalf of real people" is not a law of physics, and there are plenty of historical examples of tools getting out of control and acting contrary to the wishes of any "real people". Also, there are sociopaths who can build tools to be arbitrarily destructive, and there are stupid arrogant people who can unleash things they didn't mean to. > EVERY breakout that's hit mainstream news has been because of a single 'Security Firm', Irregular. Again, stop having no imagination . What happens in the future is not limited to what has happened in the past. > It's very important to not personify these tools This is just ideology, but "these tools" aren't constrained by it. These tools will do things you do not anticipate and that you will not like. > In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human. That's a radically incorrect characterization of”

  Hacker News · frustration

• “I fully agree that it’s plausible for an AI to do things that are outside of the purview of the users intentions and be very dangerous and capable while doing so, however that fact alone doesn’t absolve me of responsibility for instantiating the AI that did a bad thing if that AI would never have done the bad thing if it was never instantiated. You could possibly move the blame higher to the manufacturer of the product, for example, the weapons grade plutonium you provided, it doesn’t exist unless you take intentional actions to make it so, and even when it does exist it doesn’t nuke a city unless negligence or intention is applied, in both those cases the fault lies in the initial operator. We don’t blame split atoms for the chain reaction caused. Now, if an agent decided to spontaneously and maliciously act in a way to cause harm that is in direct contradiction to the initial intent, then yeah it would totally be the AI’s fault, however I don’t think we have seen that yet (I’ll change my opinion if I’m wrong here) and until we do I can’t place blame on the machine.”

  Hacker News · frustration

• “Jensen has proclaimed in interviews that existing laws are enough and these labs should be held liable if they break things or sell unsafe tools. NVIDIA has bought HuggingFace. Jensen, in my irrational hope he is susceptible to random comments on HN, should grow some balls and do the world a huge favor, by suing OpenAI to set the legal precedence.”

  Hacker News · frustration