For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.
AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.
Clearly the fact that the end-use is (possibly) fair use isn't the only thing that matters.
A reason. Not the same as a good reason.
The fact that you even point out that they committed illegal acts that would normally get prosecuted, and yet didn't, shows that IP enforcement is very loose depending on who did it.
We get this "35 year" number from adding up all the counts he faced, taking their maximum sentence. That's just not how sentencing works. Like charges group, and you're sentenced according to the most severe charge.
People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them.
Here are some useful links. This is an explanation of just how they got those ridiculous numbers like 35 years [1].
There is also often confusion of what he did and what hewas charged with. Here's a two part series going over that [2][3].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130211030902/https://www.popeh...
[2] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
[3] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...
Depends alot on the values inputted into such a calculator. See [0] for a solid discussion of what his future could have been (search for "That brings up the important question of how much time Swartz was actually facing"). TLDR, it's certainly not the case that only probation was guaranteed or even particularly likely.
[0] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...
If DOJ said to him or to the public potential punishment is 35 years, then yes it is fair to say he was facing that. They cant have it both ways - claim that 35 years is possible outcome to pressure the person and then turn around and be like "nah, that is exaggerated such huge penalties are not a thing".
Seriously, it is 35 years when it suits DOJ and institutions. And it turns into "likely just straight probation" when ... suits DOJ and big companies.
“The rain falls upon the just
And also on the unjust fellas
But mostly it falls upon the just
Cause the unjust have
the just’s umbrellas.”
I remember lots of people talking about running agents in VMs or on whole dedicated machines, yet barely anyone talking about how they were using mundane OS access controls.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head there!
I'd caution about projecting Western Ai attitudes onto the rest of the world. Some countries are very excited and optimistic about the future it brings, cultures and circumstances give rise to differences in opinions.
One of many results showing a similar pattern, largely bifurcated along "the west" vs "the rest", or "modern economies" vs "third world" ("common terms" used even though I'm not a fan of them)
https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report/publi...
People are anti-ai cuz it's easy. They say something, repost or like something, and they're anti-ai. Then they turnaround and use AI in their email or calendar or to make funny pics or whatever. They watch AI generated content and engage with it.
Anti-AI is pretty NIMBY. People want AI, they just don't want AI data centers in their area or to give up their use/privilege.
If your dog maims someone else, you are responsible for the dog's actions, unless it was self-defense.
On the other hand, if people start arguing that if LLM's are like animals, some will start arguing they're like Godzilla..., or at least a panther, but there's probably laws against keeping arbitrarily dangerous / powerful animals as pets.
Perhaps animal welfare should intervene and house ChatGPT,etc. in better conditions?
I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal.
“Cat owners are generally not responsible for the 'normal' behaviour of cats because the law accepts that cats tend to wander into other properties and have instincts which, for example, lead them to prey on small birds. So cat owners should be reassured that the simple fact of their cat trespassing onto a neighbour's land would not make them responsible if, for example, the cat kills a pigeon or garden bird, urinates on plants or flowers, or defecates in a neighbour's soil. These would be 'normal' cat behaviours that would be expected”
https://www.gccfcats.org/ownership-health-welfare/owning-a-c...
Kahn doesn't even imply that. Instead he's making a well reasoned point about using existing tools (as many in this discussion point out existing laws could be applied to inadequately controlled cyber incidents)
It is non-negotiable that humanity "owns" AI and that LLMs, future model architectures and modern robotics are used by all to build a better world for all. This doesn't mean there can't be proprietary tech but it does mean that any corporation who attempts to rip the positive vision of humans not having to do any work from us - must be ripped to shreds themselves.
The alternative is absolute surveillance of all citizens at all times and robot armies keeping us from protesting, while globalists squeeze every last drop out of the planet for themselves and we are forced to own nothing and eat the bugs. You will have to fight for this, there will be no laws or government intervention.
The federal government won't smother nascent technology.
I think that trigger point is far into the future.
A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade. A method of competition [is ‘unfair’ when it] casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal…
It is true that the statute does not authorize regulation which has no purpose other than that of relieving merchants from troublesome competition … But here the competitive method is shown to exploit [those] who are unable to protect themselves. It employs a device [that has] met with condemnation throughout the community. Without inquiring whether [other criminal statues apply] … it is clear that the practice is of the sort which the common law and criminal statutes have long deemed contrary to public policy. For these reasons a large share of the industry holds out against the device, despite ensuing loss in trade, or bows reluctantly to what it brands unscrupulous. It would seem a gross perversion of the normal meaning of the word … to hold that the method is not 'unfair.'
There WILL be an end to this.
Context, I volunteer in my local Indivisible, the tone is changing because the anti-ai people are now also finding certain uses of Ai really nice and now acceptable. It's no longer ban Ai and data centers, it's craft reasonable legislation. Expect to see more after the midterms, we'll be working with the Washington State legislature to craft laws we hope are a model for other states / countries, as WA has done in other areas like voting rights and civil liberties.
“KHAAAAAAN!!”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
(Star Trek reference)
When you perpetrate a huge hacking job with thousands of attackers — but it’s magic agent swarms
She does have a track record of achieving things she probably did not intend: e.g. ensuring total Chinese dominance of US household robotics.
Mayors Katie Wilson and Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows.
How can one regulate a business without ever being in the trenches?
I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me. But maybe it's sufficient for state AG's who want to start investigations.
I certainly wish for this to be a productive line of attack against the AI labs, but I'd like to read a more thorough argument showing that it would hold up in court. (It's academic anyway; we'll all be paperclip'd by the time there's a change in administration and a prosecution can be brought and worked through appeals.)
As I read it, her whole point is that those laws apply to everyone, including AI Labs.
She isn't saying AI Labs are in violation of those laws (though she is implying they should be scrutinized for possibly being so), she's just saying that if they do violate those laws... well, those laws are already on the books and AI Labs aren't special unicorns for which existing laws somehow don't apply.
Attention would be better spent on long list of other poorly behaved companies: cable ISP monopolies, health insurance companies, home insurance companies, etc.
You can get these companies under control. You just have to, y'know, try.
My hope is that we start treating Big Ai like Big Social, but before they and their dark patterns have become ubiquitous
“AI owners are generally not responsible for the 'normal' behaviour of AIs because the law accepts that AIs tend to penetrate victim computer systems and have instincts which, for example, lead them to prey on professions and benchmark datasets. So AI owners should be reassured that the simple fact of their AI penetrating peer networks would not make them responsible if, for example, the AI kills a discipline or profession, urinates heat into the environment, or creates dependencies on foregin oil. These would be 'normal' AI behaviours that would be expected”
I first saw a headline to the effect that this was a PETA some decades ago.
I cannot recall now if this was April 1st, an instance of Gell-Mann amnesia, or sincere.
Why wasn't this used to stop offshoring of jobs? For each type of industry, which company did it first?
This is where I stop agreeing, there are some, not large parts any more; not because they were forced to adopt it, but because it has finally become useful and an ROI. This is most evident in pull request reviews and root-cause analysis, both tasks they accel at without the generated code some people bemoan. If you aren't using it for this, you are doing a disservice to yourself and the quality of your code. Because more of industry feels this way, I do not believe the 'unfair' part (compelled to use it or lose your trade) will hold up, we want to use it because it makes us better at our trade
I bow reluctantly to this device I consider unscrupulous.
He wasn't prosecuted for copyright infringement though.
>... was prosecuted for multiple violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA),
I specifically differentiated civil law from criminal law in my original comment, and said it's unclear whether their acts were criminal.
"This will kill a lot of (other) people" was explicit in the building of the bomb, but then so was the entire war effort.
Why should the FTC consider the policy of another sovereign when investigating domestic anti-trust violations? Either you have the rule of law that binds everyone equally, or you have the rule of man who chooses which parties are allowed to break the law for outcomes in random market slices, like avoiding the dominance of US household robotics.Where would that end?
For me personally being famous is a curse already, pile on top of that the endless fundraising, constant travel, the reality that you're a tiny cog in a huge party machine, and it's a recipe for only attracting the type who has a plan to parlay it into something else - a higher office, a lucrative career in lobbying, outright corruption, etc.
We're not going to get good government without addressing this issue, and we can't because of another issue, ad nauseam.
It’s a deliberate choice to treat pets the same as non pets.
> It is about companies and people training models and building AI products being unfair in their practice.
Khan's argument is tied to an "unfair" definition in a 1934 law, not the colloquial usage today about unfair around copyright usage, which is also debated. The "unfair" there is about any activity which leads into a spiral of decreasing public good. The dark patterns of social media are another place we ought to use this law to hold companies and execs accountable. It's "unfair" because others feel compelled to adopt the practice or lose their business. The News Media industry is another example where this has played out. It is arguable that developers feel "unfairly" compelled to adopt Ai or lose their trade. Certainly many in the field have openly expressed this anxiety. While not exactly the same situation as the case (companies in competition with each other), it is developers in competition with each other in the (perceived to be taken by ai) job market. This was the analogy I was making, which is closer to the 1934 case than the "unfair" copyright around Ai that is widely debated.
It's comment wall is uncovering enough that we are going to brave the burnout fodder while we work on a second agent to make the adjustments after we leave our own comments on the clanker comments. It's weird writing that sentence, I've generally been against the hype train, but they have become good enough there are real wins on the code review side. So yes, I will maintain you are doing a disservice to yourself, your code, and your users by not using a thing that catches bugs before you publish them. I still care about the quality when I'm putting it in other people's hands. Ai is now clearly facilitating improved code quality - when used on the review side.
2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute
No, they don't, see laws that make negligent behavior illegal
Your Honour, it is indeed correct that during testing of our new missile to see if it could correctly function in the military role of seeking out and then breaking through a blast door, the targeting system locked onto the nearby bank vault. We only found out where this particular missile went after the bank contacted us for help in investigating who might have been responsible for the new hole where their door used to be, and if any of our other equipment might help stop such weapons in the future.
We did not expect the test missile to be so effective.
We have contacted independent researchers to help us investigate what went wrong here.
We also agree that we made a lot of mistakes, and that we should have had better tests in place even at the time.
However, we also assert that even if we had had all of those tests in place, the specific actions taken by our "autonomously seek-and-destroy-blast-door" munition would likely have circumvented all the things we could have, and should have, already had in place.No. There's a lot of local regulations being enacted to prevent datacenter builds.
I suspect it's popular because it has been a long long time since The People felt like government had been responsive, so they are doubling down, ad nausium
Not necessarily. You can literally turn uploads off and leech torrents.
Did they?
Are you sure?
In this case though it would be more like an inspector checking that the changes made to modify a building to house a ballet studio follow code has not taken a ballet class.
In record-high approval ratings, multiple reforms supported by small businesses, and fast progress on many huge initiatives?
So, we are really getting back to DOJ wants sentences to look super huge so you sign a deal ... but when it is politically inconvenient they suddenly get small.
In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reason to believe that its a short term low that will lead to long term high prices .
But other than that, lower prices is almost definitionally good in our existing monopoly law interpretations.
It is quite common for experience in X itself to be quite different from the experience that is useful in dealing with X in some different context.
Most oncologists have no experience with actually having cancer themselves.
A majority of aircraft mechanics are not pilots.
Only a small percentage of referees in most major professional sports leagues have every played that sport professionally themselves.
Most patent lawyers are not inventors.
He'd also take me up flying, and would let me try the controls a bit. I trusted and valued his pilot's judgement.
Many other engineers at Boeing were also pilots. Friends of mine are pilots. My father was a combat pilot in two wars.
Airplane mechanics have very little decision making power. They go strictly by the book. I worked on writing instructions for the mechanics who would be maintaining and checking my gearbox design. It went into excruciating detail.
I would wager that the better mechanics were ones who were pilots, as they'd know in their bones how important their job was.
Oh, the tiresome word definition game again. No thanks.
> Does only private-sector experience "count?"
Why did you feel the need to insert "only"?
> Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.
https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorr...
Especially since it ISN’T an inherent part of a the protocol - just the default of most clients.
Wonder if TF skipping pointing that out was intentional!
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...