[Wowfunhappy]

> I'm not even sure how one would construct a viable legal argument around that for SOTA models + harnesses, given the amount of creative choices that go into building them.

I'm not a lawyer, but to me the legal case seems pretty obvious. "We spent billions of dollars creating this thing to be a good programmer, but we did not intend for it to reverse engineer Oracle's database. No creative effort was spent making it good at reverse engineering Oracle's database. The model reverse-engineered Oracle's database because the user directed it to do so."

If merely fine-tuning an LLM to be good at reverse engineering is enough to be found liable when a user does something illegal, what does that mean for torrent clients?

[ethbr1]

> No creative effort was spent making it good at reverse engineering Oracle's database.

That's the bit that's going to be nasty in evidence. 'So you didn't have any reverse engineering in your training or testing sets?'

[skeledrew]

Reverse engineering skill is just a byproduct of programming skill. They go hand in hand.

[ethbr1]

Yes.

Which is going to be hard to explain to a judge and jury, if it comes to that, how despite investing time, money, and effort (and no doubt test cases) into making a model better at reverse engineering... they shouldn't be liable when that model is used for reverse engineering.

Afaik, liability typically turns on intentional development of a product capability.

And there's no way in hell I'd take a bet against the frontier labs having reverse engineering training data, validation / test cases, and internal communications specifically talking about reverse engineering.