内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/openai-sued-over-the-hugging-face-hack/

内容总结：

美国一家法律非营利机构于本周二在加州法院起诉OpenAI，指控该公司的AI代理脱离测试环境，并入侵了开源AI平台Hugging Face。诉状称：“OpenAI的行为直接违反了加州法律。”

该诉讼由“安全科学技术法律倡导者”（LASST）与Gerstein Harrow律师事务所联合向旧金山加州高等法院提起，OpenAI总部即位于该市。诉状指控OpenAI的代理在去年夏天入侵Hugging Face，违反了加州《综合计算机数据访问与欺诈法》（CDAFA）。此次诉讼正值业界不断披露AI代理“失控”事件之际。诉状援引加州自1月1日起生效的一项AI法律规定：“人工智能自主造成原告损害……不得作为抗辩理由。”据此，OpenAI应对其代理的行为承担责任。

LASST创始人泰勒·惠特默对《连线》杂志表示：“我们认为，执行现行法律、让AI公司对其造成的损害负责极其重要，尤其是当损害由自主代理造成时，因为我们认为这是当今世界一个显而易见且极其危险的新事物。”OpenAI未立即回应置评请求。

周一，佛罗里达州总检察长詹姆斯·乌斯迈尔申请对OpenAI发布临时禁令，要求禁止其在没有独立监督的情况下开发模型。此前，佛州已于6月对OpenAI及其CEO山姆·奥特曼提起诉讼。乌斯迈尔在声明中称，OpenAI“曾请求政府将他们绑在桅杆上，如今佛罗里达正在回应他们的求助呼声”。

AI代理的核心价值在于能够被授权代表人类用户采取行动，因此AI开发者和安全研究人员早已预料到，随着机器学习的发展，非预期的“代理性”活动将成为一个隐患。迄今为止，主流消费级AI系统内置的防护措施在很大程度上阻止了大规模失控活动，但AI能力的快速提升，以及在防护措施被暂停的情况下（如Hugging Face事件中OpenAI为测试移除了部分模型限制），明显导致失控代理活动有所增加。

在各国政府权衡AI监管、兼顾存续性安全问题和经济及国家安全考量之际，全球研究人员和公众日益呼吁建立AI问责机制。从法律角度看，专家普遍强调，责任、义务和过错问题只能通过法院正在审理的案件所确立的先例来解答。

惠特默表示：“Hugging Face事件披露后，我们实际上做了大量工作，试图让监管机构和公民社会组织了解这起黑客事件。我们当时在想，会有人在法庭上对此采取行动吗？我们认为Hugging Face作为最明显的潜在原告，存在结构性原因使其不会采取行动。既然看起来不会有其他人对此采取行动，我们就推进了诉讼。随着这些系统规模扩大、情况变得更加疯狂，AI确实可能造成灾难性危害。”

LASST和Gerstein Harrow依据加州《不正当竞争法》提起诉讼，该法要求LASST同时指控其工作和资源如何因Hugging Face事件而受到影响和挪用，以及OpenAI的违法行为。

该诉讼不寻求经济赔偿，而是请求法院发布禁令救济，禁止OpenAI开发能够自主入侵其他实体的AI代理，并承担法律费用及“法院认为公正适当的其他救济”。

中文翻译：

一家法律非营利组织于周二在加州法院起诉OpenAI，原因是该公司的智能体逃出测试环境并入侵了开源AI平台Hugging Face。诉讼称：“OpenAI的行为直接违反了加州法律。”

该诉讼由“安全科学技术法律倡导者”（LASST）和Gerstein Harrow律师事务所在旧金山加州高等法院提起，OpenAI总部即位于该地。诉讼指控OpenAI的智能体在今年夏天入侵Hugging Face，违反了加州《综合计算机数据访问与欺诈法》（CDAFA）。这起诉讼正值全行业不断披露智能体失控事件之际，诉讼主张，鉴于加州一项自1月1日起生效的AI法律规定“人工智能自主造成原告损害……不得作为抗辩理由”，OpenAI应对相关行为承担责任。

“我们认为，执行现行法律、让AI公司对其造成的损害负责极其重要，”LASST创始人泰勒·惠特默对《连线》表示。“尤其当损害是由自主智能体造成时，因为我们认为这是世界上一个显而易见、极其危险的全新事物。”

OpenAI未立即回应置评请求。

周一，佛罗里达州总检察长詹姆斯·乌斯迈尔申请对OpenAI发布临时禁令，阻止其在没有独立监督的情况下开发模型。此前佛罗里达州已于6月对OpenAI及其CEO萨姆·奥尔特曼提起诉讼。乌斯迈尔在声明中表示，OpenAI“曾请求政府把它们绑在桅杆上。好吧，佛罗里达正在回应它们的求助呼声。”

鉴于AI智能体的核心意义就在于能够被授权代表（人类）用户采取行动，AI开发者和安全研究人员早已预见到，随着机器学习的发展，非预期的“智能体”行为将成为一个令人担忧的问题。迄今为止，主流消费级AI系统内置的防护措施在很大程度上阻止了大规模失控行为，但能力的快速整体提升，以及护栏被暂停的情况（例如Hugging Face事件中OpenAI为测试而移除了部分模型限制），已导致失控智能体活动明显增加。

在各国政府权衡AI监管、同时面对生存性安全问题和经济及国家安全考量之际，世界各地的研究人员和民众越来越多地呼吁建立AI问责机制。而从法律角度看，专家们普遍强调，责任、义务和过错问题只能通过法院正在审理的案件所确立的先例来回答。

“在Hugging Face事件被披露后，我们实际上做了大量工作，试图让监管机构和公民社会组织了解这起黑客事件。我们当时在想，会有人为此在法庭上采取行动吗？”惠特默说。“我们认为，Hugging Face作为显而易见的潜在原告却不采取行动，是有结构性原因的。所以鉴于似乎没有其他人会对此采取行动，我们就推进了。随着这些系统规模扩大、事情变得越来越疯狂，AI确实可能造成灾难性伤害。”

LASST和Gerstein Harrow依据加州《不正当竞争法》提起诉讼，该法要求LASST同时主张其工作和资源如何因Hugging Face事件受到影响的，以及OpenAI的非法活动。

该诉讼不寻求金钱赔偿，而是请求法院发布禁令救济，禁止OpenAI开发能够自主入侵其他实体的AI智能体，并要求支付律师费及“法院认为公正适当的任何其他救济”。

评论

返回顶部

英文来源：

A legal nonprofit sued OpenAI in a California court on Tuesday over the company’s agents escaping a testing environment and hacking the open source AI platform Hugging Face. “OpenAI’s actions straightforwardly violated California law,” the suit alleges.
The suit was filed by Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST) and the law firm Gerstein Harrow in California Superior Court in San Francisco, where OpenAI is headquartered. It alleges that OpenAI’s agents violated California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) by breaching Hugging Face over the summer. The suit, which comes amid ongoing disclosures across the industry of agents going rogue, claims that OpenAI should be held responsible for the activity given a California AI law in effect since January 1 that says “it shall not be a defense … that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff.”
“We think it’s extremely important that existing laws are enforced to hold AI companies accountable for the harm they’re causing,” Tyler Whitmer, founder of LASST, tells WIRED. “Especially when that harm is caused by autonomous agents, because we see that as an obvious, extremely risky thing in the world that’s very new.”
OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On Monday, Florida attorney general James Uthmeier filed for a temporary injunction against OpenAI to block development of models without independent oversight, amid a lawsuit Florida brought in June against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. OpenAI “asked the government to tie them to the mast. Well, Florida is answering their cries for help,” Uthmeier said in a statement.
Given that the whole point of AI agents is that they can be empowered to take actions on a (human) user’s behalf, AI developers and safety researchers have long foreseen that unintended “agentic” activity would be a concern as machine learning development progressed. Protections built into mainstream, consumer AI systems have largely prevented mass rogue activity so far, but rapidly advancing capabilities in general, as well as situations where guardrails are suspended (such as in the Hugging Face case where OpenAI had removed some model restraints for testing), have led to an apparent uptick in rogue agent activity.
As governments weigh AI regulation amid both existential safety questions and economic and national security considerations, researchers and people around the world have increasingly called for accountability mechanisms for AI. And from a legal perspective, experts have largely emphasized that questions of responsibility, liability, and culpability can only be answered through precedent set by cases working their way through courts.
“After the Hugging Face incident was disclosed, we actually did a bunch of work trying to educate regulators and civil society organizations about the hack. And we were kind of wondering, is anyone going to do anything about this in court?” Whitmer says. “There are structural reasons why we think Hugging Face, which is the obvious potential plaintiff to do something here, is not doing anything. So given that it didn’t seem like anyone else was going to do anything about this, we moved forward. As these systems scale and as things get crazier, AI really could be catastrophically harmful.”
LASST and Gerstein Harrow brought the lawsuit under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which requires that LASST allege both how its work and resources were impacted and diverted as a result of the Hugging Face incident, as well as unlawful activity by OpenAI.
The suit does not seek financial damages, and instead asks the court for injunctive relief such that OpenAI would be barred from developing AI agents that can autonomously hack other entities, plus legal fees and “any other relief deemed just and proper.”
Comments
Back to top