po1nt
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
In case od LLMs, the reasoning is that it is a security flaw. But in this case, the party that operates the service is not the one that suffers the consequences of such security bug.
But either way you wouldn't put people in jail for having security flaws in their software.
I know this will be unpopular opinion, but it makes logical sense.
The huggingface should be compensated, OpenAI investigated, but unless there is proven negligence like disabling sandboxes or intentionally designing AI to push through them, no one should be liable in other way than monetary.
Accidents happen but we shouldn't be close minded. Chernobyl negligence wasn't reason to abandon nuclear power.
It's a monopolistic practice because it essentially enforces that only a certain party might use intellectual property, even though you can't own a thought.
The only flaky part of the argument is that it is abused by wealthy, but when you look at the rate of patents corporations put out every day, the disproportionate copyright enforcements and the fact that these corporation lobby and historically have lobbied for stronger IP protection laws, you would agree.
See insulin prices difference in europe vs US