In a serious discipline like mathematics, this isn't just an asshole move, but a career-ending level of academic misconduct.

I wonder what is required for it to cross the line into criminal blackmail.

From the company that likely committed federal crimes by hacking Hugginface

One thing that wasn't obvious to me or adults around me when I was younger: most laws define whatever acts a law punishes as individuals commiting to it, not as situations manifesting anyhow. It's not a murder just because someome died hit by a bullet you fired, but you have to have personally decided to kill that person leading to their death[1][2].

OpenAI's LLMs are not humans, and neither is the company. So by this logic, I think there's a chance that nobody committed a crime by hacking Huggingface, and also the chance that a lot of military and police organizational orders become illegal if OAI's doings would be illegal.

IANAL and all I have is a bucket of popcorns, though.

1: not a meaningful defense in a real trial, also gross negligence exists

2: this also explains insanity defense; if you were so out of your mind that you could not have held such a thought, it is considered out of scope for justice systems

> OpenAI's LLMs are not humans

Neither are guns. Which is why we punish the person shooting the gun and not the gun.

Industrial equipment, which is how i would classify LLMs, hurting people is nothing new. The relevant questions are:

- did someone intend it to happen?

- was someone negligent in taking reasonable steps to prevent something foreseeable?

The justice system doesn't punish people for legitimate accidents. e.g. if you are shooting at a shooting range, take all reasonable precautions, but someone was hiding behind the target, you are probably not guilty even if you shoot the guy.

As far as openAI goes, the logic is the same. The question is, was it intentional, was it unintentional but reasonable precautions weren't taken or was it truly an accident?

And the third time it happens, is that still just an accident?

The justice system relies on evidence not vibes.

I mean, they are going to be at least culpable for gross negligence, but who made the decision might become an interesting point of discussions(mainly in deciding precisely how they should be punched in their face and less in whether they should be at all).

*In the old discipline of mathematics.

We are in new times, where capital and compute decides mathematics, so we don't give a shit anymore

What is your view on the proof of the Four Color Theorem?

The same as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism. It's completely irrelevant to the comment you replied to and this discussion.

Don't know enough about it to have an opinion, is it related to this somehow?

You implied you weren't a fan of capital and compute driving math. How would you feel about a result that required 1200 hours of time on a powerful mainframe computer?

> a career-ending level of academic misconduct

There is no such thing anymore.

Falsified data and published? Absolutely no problem. Keep your tenure.

It’s even hard to lose your position as president of a university due to egregious misconduct.

That's not quite right - Levent and Buckmaster did not actually have the Millennium Prize qualifying NS solution but something more limited. OAI invited Buckmaster to join and help rewrite the full solution paper but did not feel it was appropriate to invite an Anthropic employee to join as well - particularly given they were using internal unreleased models.

Could we expect otherwise from big tech?

Agreeing to partially credit is an admission that they used his work.

Something like this got Schmidt/ Jobs into serious trouble …