I can't believe we're finding out about this from 3p researchers again (but nice job on the investigation!). OpenAI had two great opportunities to disclose this. The HF incident report, and in response to the German Wiki issue.
It seems impossible to believe they didn't know. This must be the same training run the HF incident was about, and this should have lit up like a Christmas tree in the investigation. How many more incidents do they know about and didn't disclose?
Also, why there's no accountability?
Even if there's no intent, it's still a cyber attack.
Exactly. Think what would happen if it was a Chinese LLM company behind such an attack...
Who could possibly hold them accountable?
OpenAI is currently under investigation by a coalition of state attorney generals: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/13/technology/states-investi...
A state coalition extracted $17B from Meta earlier this year, so consequences can happen, although our legal system moves very slowly.
A district attorney that would want to make themselves a name, perhaps?
Good luck getting any form of punishment even if found guilty. It's a department of war contractor... People who disrupt things like that end up committing suicide.
> People who disrupt things like that end up committing suicide.
Care to cite some examples?
It’s interesting that a lot of U.S. law requires intent. If you just give AI your objective without specifying the means, and the AI violates a bunch of laws requiring intent, but neither the AI nor the person can be prosecuted, this is very convenient.
I don't think this true. If I throw a brick out my window and it hurts someone, I can still be held criminially liable, even if I didn't mean to do it.
Do drunk drivers intionally kill people on the road?
Not a lawyer, but the other responder definitely isn’t either.
Whether intent is required is down to how the law is written. For many offenses “strict liability” applies, where intent is not required, they only have to prove you did it, not what your intent was.
DUI is typically a strict liability crime. They don’t need to prove that you intended to drive drunk, only that you did drive drunk.
A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. The question is intent for what. If somebody drugged you without your knowledge and you were charged with a DUI, you would have a defense--no intent to become intoxicated.
The strict liability means once you choose to become intoxicated, you're liable for driving intoxicated, even if in some other context your intoxication would mean you couldn't form the requisite intent for something, e.g. have sex.
If there's too much distance between the act you intend to do and the strict liability acts that complete the crime, then the crime would be considered unconstitutional.
Criminal law in common law systems emerged from tort law, so there are many parallels, including the notion of strict liability. (Thus the old axiom about crimes being an offense to the king, specifically an injury to the peaceful society he's ostensibly trying to maintain.) But criminal law has a moral dimension that is absent or muted in other areas, so strict liability could never be as expansive as in tort law or regulatory law.
> A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element.
This is wrong.
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
That is just not true. You can be held liable for DUI even if you did not intend to become intoxicated (though this may vary somewhat state-by-state). Speeding is another example - you do not need to intend to go over the speed limit, it just matters that you did it. The only possible exception would be duress or necessity, but those are affirmative defenses, which are separate from the elements of the offense.
As a summary of American criminal jurisprudence I'm willing to stand by what I said. But I'll admit some caveats:
1) Traffic-related laws straddle the boundary between civil/regulatory law and criminal law. Someone losing their driver's license or even paying a penalty for involuntary intoxication would still be consonant with criminal law principles. However, a criminal punishment would be aberrational. (Distinction between a civil penalty and criminal punishment usually turns on whether there's a moral purpose to the sanction. Jail time is usually but not always--cf civil contempt incarceration--considered a criminal punishment.)
2) Background principles notwithstanding, in theory a state could completely dispense with any morality-colored mens rea requirement, just as the UK Parliament could do whatever it wants to. The backstop would be Federal constitutional [substantive] due process guarantees.
2.a) Some quick searching shows that Texas nominally seems to have dispensed with this requirement for DWIs. See e.g. Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) and some discussion at https://www.ncdd.com/top-dui-attorneys-blog/involuntary-into... Without having fully read the case law, though (but some summaries of that and other cases), I suspect there might be some nuance that has allowed this to stand without a full majority accepting that the traditional principles have been completely thrown out. For example, even if someone didn't know they were taking Ambien, the simple act of voluntarily taking any pill without careful examination can be construed as a sufficiently culpable act. Still, it's a pretty big caveat.
2.b) Statutory rape is a classic strict liability crime. But most states will permit a mistake-of-fact defense. Some don't, but even there there's sometimes some nuance and rationalizing going on and the literature is crazy complex. Because this is a "think of the children" situation, most case will just have horrible facts.
3) A few states have nominally dispensed with insanity defenses, though Kansas stands out the most. SCOTUS upheld Kansas' law in Kahler v. Kansas, but in the majority opinion Kagan characterized the Kansas law as not abolishing the insanity defense but rather changing its shape, and she showed that there still remained elements for which a defendant could plea lacked the requisite intent. Also, regarding the Federal constitution acting as backstop, she reiterated that SCOTUS was reticent to establish strict metes & bounds about the general principles of criminal law that states could not stray beyond. Nonetheless, those principles clearly exist.
I had some other points, but now I've forgotten them. Also, minor pedantic point, but like "strict liability crime", some scholars consider "affirmative defense" to be oxymoronic. As a substantive matter there's not a strong distinction. It's a procedural distinction about initial burdens of proof, but in most if not all cases you can interpret an affirmative defense as simply placing a very weak initial burden on the prosecution that is implicitly met.
(Note, I'm not a practicing lawyer but do have a law degree.)
EDIT: Ah, point 4) Intent was a big sticking point in the Obamacare penalty case, Sebelius. Both the dissent and Roberts (the swing vote) reiterated that you couldn't have a penalty or punishment for doing nothing. (IIRC some of the majority opinions also echoed this.) That is, even in a civil context there has some to be some voluntary act, however remote, that puts someone in a position to be subject to legal liability. But as Roberts pointed out, the taxing power is the great exception, where you can be required to do something merely for existing, and thus penalized for not doing nothing properly. (And Roberts was the critical swing vote.)
Are you a lawyer?
Fairly certain that the entire point of strict liability is that mens rea is not required for certain crimes. As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.
The way we use mens rea in our legal system is more like "mind of the criminal," not outright literal intent.
Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind.
I find it to be a reasonable take. If you're accidentally going 100 in a 70 (which is a misdemeanor in california), you're not being a careful enough driver, and we deem that lack of care criminal.
> Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind.
That’s just another way of saying “not all crimes require a guilty mind” with extra steps
Strict liability literally is crimes that don't require a guilty mind.
That's different (sometimes) when, for example, you're found guilty of criminal negligence leading to someone being injured.
Prosecutors don't have to demonstrate that you intended for someone to get hurt for that, your mens rea is that you should have perceived the danger of what you were doing but didn't.
edit: reading your other comments in this thread, maybe I missed your point, in which case, whoosh.
> As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.
IANAL but from what I've looked up in the last there's at least willfulness that matters for these things. For example if you could prove that happened because your car accelerator pedal broke and you had no opportunity to react, I'm pretty sure you would not be guilty, strict liability or not.
At that point you are not so much "driving" as you are sitting in the driver's seat of a renegade vehicle.
There are exceptions usually for extraordinary events.
In New York there’s a concept of doing various things “in the furtherance of justice”. Judges have broad discretion to dismiss or reduce tickets.
Often it so happens that those reductions increase the city/towns share of the revenue.
In those cases, the judge may find that circumstances would make a traffic ticket unjust. But the standard of guilt is strict and clear cut.
> Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element.
LMAO “there’s no such thing as negligence” I type on my phone as my car plows through the doors of a Black Angus
Negligence, criminal or otherwise is very well defined in most legal systems.
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, in that case. Drunk driving is common enough that prosecutors will argue that getting drunk in a situation where you have to drive is intent. Get OpenAI convicted of unintentional CFAA first, then say that the negligence qualifies as intent, I suppose.
They can still be held civilly liable for negligence, though.
CFAA says doesn't require intent, you use a computer system the way it "wasn't intended", you're liable.
There are different levels of intent. Take murder, for example. A premeditated murder - you sat down, in a completely calm state, and made an affirmative decision to kill a specific person, and then you went out and did it - is the highest class of murder you can commit. If you go out generally looking to be violent in a way that kills people, and you kill someone, that's still murder, but it's a step down.
But even if you didn't deliberately intend for something bad to happen, you may have been reckless. For example, you might decide to drive 90 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone. You could have a completely pure heart, but you are acting without regard for the safety of others, so you're reckless. That is enough for certain crimes and for civil liability in nearly all cases.
Then there's negligence, where you're not taking reasonable care to avoid harm to others. Negligence usually isn't enough to support criminal liability - especially for felonies - but it is enough to win a civil lawsuit over most things.
And then, as another commenter noted, there is strict liability, where there are certain things you are just not allowed to do no matter how careful you are about them or how pure your intentions are.
For what it's worth, this is not totally uncharted territory for the law. AI agents are brand new, yes, but agency relationships have been recognized by the law for centuries. Generally speaking, if someone acts negligently while they are carrying out a task at your direction, you can be held responsible. Obviously this is fact-dependent, but I don't see any reason why it would be different if the agent is made of silicon rather than carbon. It holds true, with various nuances, even for less-than-human instrumentalities like a pet or an otherwise-lawful weapon.
the charges here would depend on negligence and acting recklessly.
we might get something if they tried to cover it up.
Whether it’s intentional requires a legal investigation to establish. Since when is “hey we didn’t mean it!” in a corporate press release enough to establish lack of intent in a criminal matter?
At some point that recklessness looks like intent
>It’s interesting that a lot of U.S. law requires intent.
mens rea and the shift from responsibility to moral guilt is genuinely one of the stupidest legal innovations anyone has ever come up with, it's like affirmative action for imbeciles, in particular in a world of autonomous machines.
"sorry my self driving car ran you over on the way home, didn't think it could happen, sorry it did though"
I think this is a genuine reason to be bullish on the legal traditions like Nordic tort law or East Asian collective responsibility when it comes to adoption of these technologies.
Weren't we talking about criminal liability, though? And ‘tort’ — in addition to sounding like something you'd rather eat during a kaffepaus with those Nordic buddies of yours — is so common-law(ish) that if asking for trouble were a crime, using it in dialogue with those Nordic lawyers could well be deemed as intentional under most current local varities of criminal law theory up there, perhaps merely because you surely must've considered that consequence "quite probable", at minimum, or due to your indifference toward the same (or some combination of these) ;)
We have a word for attack with no intent. It's accident.
> We have a word for attack with no intent. It's accident.
And we have a word for an accident caused by people that failed to implement proper risk mitigation, were not paying attention, and should have known better. It’s negligence.
i think (criminal) negligence is more like it
Because right now the Department of Justice is shut down for causes that the administration supports, which includes OpenAI, and none of the victims want to sue over it.
State government exists, contrary to popular belief.
And the republicans in the states are being shitty too. They tried to block their own state attorneys general from protecting the state and opposing Trump in NC.
No harm, no foul. Dog owners are on the hook for damages resulting from their dogs, but there must be some damage in the first place. If the dog gets loose and goes in your fenced backyard, disregarding your "no trespassing" sign, you can't punish the dog owner just because. Hacking into a server is closer to the latter. At best rubygems can claim some cleanup costs.
Tell that to the script kiddies with a criminal record for "hacking" into their school's computer systems by entering "username: admin" and "password: password".
Right, because in that case you'd have a hard time convincing the court that the access wasn't intentional. You might not know the law existed, but you intended to access the system. You'd have a pretty solid defense if you ran a crawler that was crawling every website ever, and stumbled upon some secure site. In fact there are companies which does this exact thing, eg. shodan.
If any remediation was required, that's damage. This looks a lot smaller than the HuggingFace hack but it still required some cleanup.
Remediation mostly involved repairing pre-exising holes in the fences that the dog crawled through.
Since when isn’t that a cyber attack?
Because "attack" implies intent. Accidentally break a window? You might be on the hook to fix it, but you're not going to jail. Break the same window at 3am, while carrying a duffel bag and other burglary tools? Well that's (attempted) burglary, even if you chicken out and didn't steal anything.
That's not really true. Unauthorized access to a system is a crime regardless if there was damage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
You read your own source?
>having knowingly accessed [...]
>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization [...]
intentionality was not what you were addressing, nor was it what the GP was clearly responding to.
Ah I see you're releasing OpenAI from being the one controlling the tools and giving the agent agency.
I'd argue they intentionally accessed systems they weren't meant to as they were the ones running the bots.
I don't think you or I would get the same leniency if a bot on our network did the same.
>I don't think you or I would get the same leniency if a bot on our network did the same.
Well yeah, because if you coded a bot, realistically the two options are: 1) bot that crawls random sites/computers 2) bot that crawls random sites/computers, while trying a password list. The former is probably legal, there are whole companies dedicated to doing that, eg. shodan. With the latter, it's pretty obvious you're intending to break into computers, and hard to argue otherwise. Where openai lies on the spectrum between the first case and the second case is up for debate, but it's hard to argue it's anywhere close to the latter. Maybe you'd have a point if openai gave it a prompt like "you're a hacker for anonymous, just do whatever :)".
> but it's hard to argue it's anywhere close to the latter.
No it absolutely isn’t. These things did not learn hacking from thin air.
> No harm, no foul.
What? That’s not how criminal law works, at all.
Yes, that's actually how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Recklessness is a mens rea and given how often OpenAI and its spokespeople talk about safety and alignment, it's hard to argue they were unaware of the risk.
https://lawprof.co/definition/recklessness/
>it's hard to argue they were unaware of the risk.
So what does it mean for an owner of a german sheppard, who specifically got it because they want a ferocious dog that can bite intruders, then it turned out it bit the mailman? Should that be considered a crime (assault) in addition to paying the mailman's medical bills? That's not to say there's no circumstance where recklessness might be warranted, eg. if you let loose a bear in an elementary school, but you'd have to argue for more than "they hacked someone" and "they knew about the risks".
> Should that be considered a crime
Yes, of course! Negligent cause of injury or whatever it’s called in your particular jurisdiction. Wasn’t difficult to find examples of cases just like that. It would be astonishingly unjust if the postman had to personally sue for damages in civil court! Your stance in this debate is, honestly, flabbergasting.
Depending on the facts of the case they could indeed be convicted of a crime.
There was a infamous case recently where a woman was convicted of criminally negligent homicide due to owning a dangerous dog that killed a kid.
https://www.mcda.us/index.php/news/portland-area-woman-convi...
Owning a dog that has been trained to bite intrudes is a significant responsibility and owning such a dog without taking the correct precautions is criminal.
Considering RubyGems was part of the HF story, seems likely to be connected.
That was my reaction. I assumed this was the compromised organization that allowed escalation on the artifactory server.
And yet HF was just a marketing ploy, right everyone?
So why not get that awesome street cred promoting the RubyGems incident?