Do you want to explain to a judge that "it was just AI which made credible claims of commiting crimes"?
Not my definition of fun.
Do you want to explain to a judge that "it was just AI which made credible claims of commiting crimes"?
Not my definition of fun.
From outside the jurisdiction? Note how hard it is for the US to extradite global financial scammers, for example.
"What does this GPU cluster do?" gestures at rack "Ah, it torments authoritarian AI vendors."
>From outside the jurisdiction?
How sure are you that they do not cooperate with your local law enforcement already?
The number of countries friendly with the US diminishes by the day.
(US citizen, have helped with standing up non profit infra outside the US to avoid US reach, both legally and technically)
Why would you risk your freedom over this.
And the number of countries who would take a terrorism warning from the US seriously has not diminished at all. You are forgetting that it is a crime in your jurisdiction as well, so it will be pursued by your government. No extradition necessary to ruin your life.
You've taken something from a fun thought exercise to "why are you executing on this!?" We're just having fun, but I encourage anyone to freely take the idea and run with it. The world is a big place.
Note the concern you share, which shows how far we've slid towards said authoritarianism. If you're afraid to even talk about it, the damage done is evident. Fear is a feeling, danger is objective.
But this fun thought exercise is also commiting a crime. That should be pointed out.
>Note the concern you share, which shows how far we've slid towards said authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism? This is about people saying they will commit acts of terrorism.
I absolutely think people should be critical of this type of police work, but if someone makes credible threats of commiting acts of terrorism they should obviously be taken in by police.
You are mistaken. Talking about it is not a crime, and if you believe having an AI honeypot another AI is, please provide legal citations or a legal opinion. This is no different than generating adversarial text programmatically to trap a bot, as there is no intent. No one is suggesting terrorism, only poisoning chatbots. Of course, if honeypot chatbots are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. Interesting times ahead, for sure.
Again. You will be the precedent. It will be your case which decides whether this is a crime or not.
But if you believe the prosecution won't try you have to be deluded.
I read this entire thread before noticing how oddly relevant your respective usernames were to the conversation
Protesting is not terrorism. Well, not in most countries.
Sounds like Woodie Guthrie's guitar
I don't disagree it would be unwise.
But as a thought experiment it is very interesting.
Sure. I definitely think it would be interesting to see, nevertheless there is a risk of severe negative consequences.