Post #4128220
2026-07-27 01:57 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@0x00string@infosec.exchange 2026-07-27 03:24
@seldo@alpaca.gold sam altman, the same guy who promoted one of the two models involved in this as doing this very kind of thing, and then deployed it - him along with everyone else watching it operate and not turning it off but instead waiting 5 days before even saying anything about it. looking at this happening and concluding that they cannot be responsible for their softwares actions because the CFAA requires a person to intend to hack something is so mewling it hurts to consider. this is where we are at though, the technicality that "woah your honor i didnt mean for my software, which i designed to hack things and which ive bragged about using unrelated attack surfaces to accomplish objectives, to hack anyone!" counts. just love that its the worlds biggest rich man's money pit getting to prove the exceptions to the rule and not people who still deserve to be alive or whole. but no im sure youre going to end up being right, not because any of this is right, but because these people are in the favor of the regime and things like "the cfaa says who and bobot is not a who" is going to fly in every color.
-
@secretbatcave@don.secretbatcave.co.uk 2026-07-27 07:11
@seldo@alpaca.gold @0x00string@infosec.exchange I don’t think intent is the key operator here. The crime has happened, the question is twofold: 1) will huggingface bring civil action? 2) will someone bring a criminal case? I suspect the case would revolve around has this happened before (sounds like it has) was the outcome likely (internal communication would indicate on that) were the safeguards adequate. Don’t forget common law has precedence, if brought as a criminal action, could define bot liability