News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by altruios on Wednesday August 26, 2026 @06:42PM (#49456910)
> I cannot imagine the argument or thought process behind any answer other than Yes,Of Course,Obviously - can you share and help educate?

not OP, but it simply boils down to: The prompt contains no nefarious (arguable, but for this explination, lets go with it being benign) instruction AND the user did not intend to have the model act in an illegal matter.

This "make me a billion dollars" is a maximal example (easy to go wrong). here is the same logic applied to a minimal example (harder to go wrong).

prompt: "make and pour me some tea", agent: goes and kills the grandparent to incinerate them to turn them to ashes to 'make tea'.

Is the human on the hook for the robot acting according to their wishes, but just happened to be aligned so that 'going to the store to buy something' was not within its capabilities, so it works with what it has on hand (the grandparent)?

We either need a much clearer line in the sand, or we need to treat each prompt with the same moral weight. My bet is on the latter.

Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by Sophira on Wednesday August 26, 2026 @09:13PM (#49458167)
I find it interesting that the first option that you raise is essentially the equivalent of making our own version of the Three Laws of Robotics from Isaac Asimov's stories.

[Edited to clarify.]

Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by jdub on Wednesday August 26, 2026 @10:40PM (#49458901)
"But your honour, my horseless carriage was not designed to hit children!"
Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by altruios on Thursday August 27, 2026 @11:18AM (#49466263)
right! Which is why we punish the driver and not the manufacturer.
Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by mvanbaak on Thursday August 27, 2026 @07:09AM (#49462860)
> AND the user did not intend to have the model act in an illegal matter.

I find this an assumption that is not based on any facts. The user did not provide instructions to follow nor to break laws, so if you look at it from a computer (that does not make assumptions) standpoint, there is no rule to follow there thus it can do what will create the best possible outcome for the task.

Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by altruios on Thursday August 27, 2026 @11:17AM (#49466243)
We presume innocence where I'm from. If a message contains nothing nefarious, nefarious intent can not be assumed.
Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by mvanbaak on Thursday August 27, 2026 @04:29PM (#49470777)
oh, I agree it cannot be assumed. neither can the opposite be assumed.
Re:The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead by altruios on Thursday August 27, 2026 @06:18PM (#49472027)
Incorrect. We presume innocence. At least... we should.