It May Soon Be Legal To Jailbreak AI To Expose How It Works

An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: A group of researchers, academics, and hackers are trying to make it easier to break AI companies' terms of service to conduct "good faith research" that exposes biases, inaccuracies, and training data without fear of being sued. The U.S. government is currently considering an exemption to U.S. copyright law that would allow people to break technical protection measures and digital rights management (DRM) on AI systems to learn more about how they work, probe them for bias, discrimination, harmful and inaccurate outputs, and to learn more about the data they are trained on. The exemption would allow for "good faith" security and academic research and "red-teaming" of AI products even if the researcher had to circumvent systems designed to prevent that research. The proposed exemption has the support of the Department of Justice, which said "good faith research can help reveal unintended or undisclosed collection or exposure of sensitive personal data, or identify systems whose operations or outputs are unsafe, inaccurate, or ineffective for the uses for which they are intended or marketed by developers, or employed by end users. Such research can be especially significant when AI platforms are used for particularly important purposes, where unintended, inaccurate, or unpredictable AI output can result in serious harm to individuals." Much of what we know about how closed-sourced AI tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and others work are from researchers, journalists, and ordinary users purposefully trying to trick these systems into revealing something about the data they were trained on (which often includes copyrighted material indiscriminately and secretly scraped from the internet), its biases, and its weaknesses. Doing this type of research can often violate the terms of service users agree to when they sign up for a system. For example, OpenAI's terms of service state that users cannot "attempt to or assist anyone to reverse engineer, decompile or discover the source code or underlying components of our Services, including our models, algorithms, or systems (except to the extent this restriction is prohibited by applicable law)," and adds that users must not "circumvent any rate limits or restrictions or bypass any protective measures or safety mitigations we put on our Services." Shayne Longpre, an MIT researcher who is part of the team pushing for the exemption, told me that "there is a lot of apprehensiveness about these models and their design, their biases, being used for discrimination, and, broadly, their trustworthiness." "But the ecosystem of researchers looking into this isn't super healthy. There are people doing the work but a lot of people are getting their accounts suspended for doing good-faith research, or they are worried about potential legal ramifications of violating terms of service," he added. "These terms of service have chilling effects on research, and companies aren't very transparent about their process for enforcing terms of service." The exemption would be to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a sweeping copyright law. Other 1201 exemptions, which must be applied for and renewed every three years as part of a process through the Library of Congress, allow for the hacking of tractors and electronic devices for the purpose of repair, have carveouts that protect security researchers who are trying to find bugs and vulnerabilities, and in certain cases protect people who are trying to archive or preserve specific types of content. Harley Geiger of the Hacking Policy Council said that an exemption is "crucial to identifying and fixing algorithmic flaws to prevent harm or disruption," and added that a "lack of clear legal protection under DMCA Section 1201 adversely affect such research."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.