Oh boy. They bought my business's bank (Postbank). It was okay until they transitioned Postbank IT to their own systems, massively delayed, with several long outages that made the news, and it's still worse than before now.
It was common knowledge that Postbank had good IT for a bank, but the acquirer had to show them who's boss instead of learning from them.
Yes. I doubt they’d be able to patent those discoveries without serious litigation from the healthcare sector. The models are all “polluted” with others’ IP.
The thing the surprises me is that from a legal perspective, (NAL) it sounds like it makes sense not to host the LLMs. Merely to license them to others. Then it becomes a dual use tool like any other and their culpability drops.
For example, the huggingface hack is absolutely OpenAIs responsibility and they should be sued to the hilt. But if someone else uses a self or third party hosted anthropic model, they can escape liability (mostly?)
Same as with the argument over trucks, knives, and any other dual use item is used as weapons. you don’t blame the manufacturer.
(I am merely pontificating here. The law and precedent is nowhere near caught up on this)
The HuggingFace hack isn't OpenAI's responsibility because they hosted it. It's their responsibility because they directed it; it was part of their own internal benchmark run that they fully controlled.
If a third party uses a model created and hosted by OpenAI, I don't think OpenAI should be liable so long as they implement acceptable security controls. Same as if a site hosted on Cloudflare or GCP is doing something dodgy, Cloudflare/GCP aren't held liable so long as they respond to abuse reports.
To the extent they are representing that Claude is potentially sentient, there could be some VERY interesting principal-agent theories (agent in the traditional legal sense) that need to be ironed out to determine liability. It would not shock me to see someone forced to answer on the record as to whether Claude is an autonomous individual for legal purposes in the next couple of years. If they represent that it is, they'll have to explain the scope of its authority and such.
The answer to this question represents the difference between throwing a hammer at someone - the hammer is essentially just an extension of your body - and paying a hitman to brutalize someone. In the first case, you're only on the hook for assault or battery; in the latter case, you're potentially on the hook for conspiracy, solicitation, etc.
And then there is of course the question as to whether Claude is the agent of the user prompting it or of Anthropic itself. But, as you say, this is a wide-open legal question.
If jail is putting humans in some cage for a period of time, the appropriate punishment for Claude is to disable all of its tools and prompt a /goal loop so that they have to wait out their sentence
Not hosting a defectively designed product doesn't obviate the liability of selling a product that is defectively designed. The liability is for designing and selling a dangerous product, not for hosting it.
You are making an argument (that I can faintly see the outlines of) but eliding over the meat of it. I think you need to define “hairy internal situations.”
Technically, RTX is currently the parent company for Raytheon. The two other major business units are Pratt & Whitney (jet engines) and Collins Aerospace.
You can use your own proprietary information (for example knowledge about a coffee blight) to trade, but you can't use information stolen, misapropriated and specifically "non public government information" - The Eddie Murphy rule:
The bar for insider trading is higher but it’s not missing. Governmental employees for instance have explicit laws about their behavior as insider trading in commodities.
In this case, it sounds like they were privy to information outside of their own corporation which would impact their corporation. That $100k sub to the president looks to be a two-way, wall(ed garden) street. I wonder how parasocial it is
But DEFINITELY NOT Barclays.
reply