Ethics aside, you can create an NGO with three people and do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual or it would be a lot more expensive to do.

If everyone did this, it would stop being a special ability of some people.

That did not work well enough for Kim Dotcom.

Corporations are people too, but only when it's convenient.

What do you mean "in trouble"? We're literally seeing that stonks go up when crime.

just read about it, what a sad story, thanks for the reference.

the most scary part is knowing this is the fear we all have, and the one they want us to have.

I think they forgot about that, thank god. All the innocent citizens we sent there are still being tortured daily, but that somehow lost their interest. God forbid they remember before the midterms and ruin more lives for a stunt…

That said I just recently saw a story of a Latin American man sent to the Central African Republic, which has gotta be one of the most absurd & dangerous places to send someone. Less opportunities for them to stage photo shoots with that strategy, tho.

Stock prices always include the expected future profits, that's the market rates a stock

> My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives [...]

I've daydreamed about this too. I want to sit them down in an interview and try and dissect their thought process/morals. I doubt it's possible to succeed.

You got my standing ovation.

> Intention matter a lot in US law.

Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.

> and had no reasonable belief it was possible

The broad concept has been well-known for half a century at least, and the very specific concept for several years at least. It’s clear that they didn’t take reasonable precautions against it. And it’s not even the first time this sort of thing has happened, though it’s higher-profile and -impact than before.

> People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

What the Frontier labs have done is not this, however. Also, they know damn well what can happen and they still don't take the appropriate precautions. At this point it's very hard to believe it's not intentional for purposes of marketing.

THere is intention

ie, I intended to steal money from you. Under common law stealing is "taking with intent to deprive". How thats determined is a bit harder.

But how can someone be "grossly negligent" if they didn't intend to cause an accident? well they either allowed a situation to happen, or didn't stop a situation happening that they could see was bad.

An example of this would be the igintion switch from GM that caused all those deaths. the engineer saw that it was shit, knew it didn't do what it was supposed to do, and half arsed the replacement to the point where it wasn't actually changed.

"We are going to test the cyber capabilities of this new model. Yeah it should be fine to have a package proxy. Hmm? whats that? isn't that a security issue? naaaa those proxies are secure."

Intention matters in the severity of charges and sentencing. Crime due to ignorance or negligence is still a crime.

Well that and you spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to reinforce that point and make the prosecution rethink whether they will profit off of this case or not.

US law doesn't really give much of a crap about your intentions unless you can back it up with a wall of money to exclude yourself from the rules of the general population.

Intention (mens rea) is not a get out of jail free card, it just changes the nature of the crime and charges you get convicted off.

If you run someone over on purpose you get convicted of murder. If You do it by driving recklessly you get convicted of culpable homicide.

The only time you get off with nothing is if it is determined to be an accident.

As they always say: ignorance of the law is no excuse. Running a dangerous machine prevents you from claiming you had no idea the machine was dangerous.

> Intention matter a lot in US law.

They hacked a competition company. The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had.

> People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

Because it is a lose for that people. If the botnet left money in their pockets the situation would be totally different as there will be an incentive for them to let the botnet hack them.

But US law also has a concept of negligence. If you set up an AI to do this and didn't take reasonable steps to prevent it you could still be on the hook.

At the very least it would be reckless.

Intention of the AI?

If you make a serious attempt to look like you're engaged in legitimate business, people will (shockingly) be somewhat more hesitant to think you're committing a crime than if you are just openly committing crime.

HuggingFace had no interest in squeezing a few million dollars out of OpenAI in the midst of being acquired by Nvidia.

The optics are bad for HF as well because they gladly host abliterated models with safety training removed. When Astra/Fable level open weights models arrive, HF will soon be the cause of far worse incidents, and they know it.

Mastodons will also respond to a plain "application/json" HTTP request, no cruft,

    curl 'https://beige.party/api/v1/statuses/117057396732763183' | jq '.content'

Especially when the page source actually contains all the content (so no need to fetch it in JS), part of which is even presented in title.

https://beige.party/@intransitivelie.rss

I had a nice mobile experience. It asks you to log in or create an account, but it’s along the bottom, and you can read all the content fine.

How is that different from email, IRC, instant messaging, or anything else nerds use?

FWIF, way back when, Twitter was the "Twitter for tech nerds".

Lots of water under the fridge since...

I really don't think that describes my Mastodon experience. Twitter for people with a conscience would be more accurate.

Treating HTML as a bootloader for an app has always felt like the wrong pattern to me. Outside of Authn/passkeys, it would seem a person could do basically everything in HTML (but, to be frank, I am not a front end dev and would welcome correction).

> Thanks. Its insane how "Twitter, but for tech nerds" has a hard requirement to either enable Javascript or download some app.

https://masto.mirror.forum/beige.party/@intransitivelie/1170...

Source code: https://github.com/SerJaimeLannister/mastoview

(Disclaimer: It's vibe-coded. It does server side rendering to then just give pure HTML to the end user with no JS required.)

I hope that this helps people who want to view Mastodon without JS.

Patches welcome

im sorry but expecting sites to work properly without javascript in 2026 is basically denialism

It's understandable when you see that the ethos is to have software that represents the user in charge of the rendering, rather than centralizing it all on the server. There is a major difference between common "app store apps" or hostile javascript bundled with websites, versus software that's been written to work in the user's interest. However as they use similar delivery methods, it's understandable that it takes a minute to think through and revisit your assumptions that have lead to being default anti- javascript or app.

"Certifiably insane" to enable JavaScript, which was invented in 1995, or install an app, which first happened on the Palm series of smartphones in 1996. Either of those are "certifiably insane"?

For reference, the term neurodiversity was coined circa 1998.

Nobody ACTUALLY thinks this way, they just want to break all the laws and make their billions without any consequences. We've already seen the big ai labs turn around and cry foul when others try to use their content but they are happy to continue doing it themselves.

The hypocrisy and willingness to play dumb are kind of staggering.

The company owners have one set of standards for those that work for them, and a completely different set of standards for themselves and for the company itself.

If you are using AI and it causes some damage to them, then it's your fault and you'll get reprimanded/fired. If they deploy AI and it causes damage to someone else, then that's proof that AI has extraordinary capabilities that no one could predict and that merit way more investment in this tech.

Well, responsibility laundering isn't exactly new. People use corporations to diffuse responsibility and avoid punishment for crimes all the time. "The corporation did it, not the decision makers in the corporation!"

But if you are in a full selfdriving car and it kills someone, is it on the user, or on the vendor of the car? Or does it depend on what is in the EULA and whether the user agreed to it?

Its like companies handing over race cars to delivery drivers and telling them to drive responsibly but unofficially tell them that they expect reduced delivery times due to faster cars.

Do you think the average rate of accidents will stay the same ?

You're an employee. This use case is for people much richer than you.

It’s mostly the anti AI crowd that thinks that people that work LLMs think this way. I’ve never met anyone that actually does think this way.

Security tags are just a tool. Doesn't change that you are regarded as a thief when one isn't disabled after you've paid for your new property.

The efficiency of responsibility laundering depends on your social standing. If people like you they welcome reasons not to prosecute you, if you are disliked people might go as far as to start prosecuting you for made up reasons.

Institutional rules that require people to break them (eg putting pressure on them to work faster than possible while adhering to all rules) are a great means to selectively enforce them to get rid of undesirables.

POW!

> my chatbot illegally infiltrated servers without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it

> taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it

That latter part of the sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting here

I'm almost certain it was parody.

I consider myself an advanced industry representative in these things and would also borrow some time for detailed investigation. I'd happily contribute some valuable assets (tacos with cheese dip) into the matter, straight out of my personal drawers.

„If the actors are good“ is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The translators have to be good too btw.

Finding it hard to connect this comment to my OC, did you mean to comment on another thread? If not could you elaborate?

You can get usene* from TorBox in the pro plan but I've never had a problem with the cheapest plan. What's the advantage?

my bad you're right. edited.

Exactly. If your website could be attacked via SQL injection, that was a problem that directly affected you - and you were motivated to fix it. When the victim is the masses or small organizations (not the company that does the attack) they are not as motivated to fix it... The important thing is that the lack of sanitizing is what allowed this; you also don't push the blame on a monkey banging on a typewriter when you publish each result without reading it.

If you left a dog in your garage for a day, and came back to a scene of carnage - because the dog broke out of the garage, recruited a dozen neighborhood dogs to its cause, and then, working with the group, managed to assemble a small pile of pipe bombs, and decided to settle the score with all the annoying cars on the road - you would be accountable for the damage the dogs did. Wouldn't you?

No, what you would be is: freaking out about "my dog did WHAT, WHY, HOW, WHAT THE FUCK".

Most of the time, giving AI a harness with a root shell and unrestricted internet access is a perfectly reasonable action that results in absolutely nothing bad happening! And giving AI a harness with limited local access and no internet access is being overly cautious already.

But then there's this freaky outlier of an AI that's both deranged enough to decide to break out of the sandbox and go hacking all over the place, and capable enough to actually pull it off. And you get a sudden AI oopsie!

Wrong. AI companies is still legally liable for anything their models do when they operate them. There is no special exception for them. But the fact is that not every potential crime results in litigation. Many crimes are only prosecuted if the wronged party actually wants to sue, and often that doesn't happen.