alt Hacker NewsIt's very likely it violates the DMCA "breaking digital lock" provisions but the responsibility is sufficiently diluted that it's impossible to charge anyone in particular.
Replies
> the responsibility is sufficiently diluted that it's impossible to charge anyone in particular.
Was not that the goal when companies started using AI for their customer support? Be able to say anything without legal repercussions...
But then this happened: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatb...
And support chatbot got a reality cold shower.
The law will find a way to charge people in particular. Sadly will start with the less powerful in the chain before it actually acts on the people that can actually change things.
Do you have to charge an individual? Can you not charge the corporate "person" that is OpenAI?
Sorry if it is a stupid question, as mentioned above I am legally naïve.
Sounds like we need discovery to determine who to charge.
It doesn't need to be twisted to violate the DMCA anticircumvention clause because it is already just plain old hacking.
A copyright law seems an odd place to start. This is computer misuse.
Issuing subpeonas, raiding offices, and dragging key employees into interrogation rooms as you would find in any normal criminal investigation would be more than enough to ensure "AI safety" without any new regulations, acts of congress, Bernie Sanders campaign speeches, or even charges filed.
There have been news stories where individual OpenAI users have been investigated based on their prompts. If OpenAI can point the police to specific users of their software, they can certainly point them to whichever of their own employees are involved in a crime. AI is just a tool, and the person prompting it is the one responsible for the outcome. No dilution there.