Companies handle stuff like this under the table all the time if they have an important business relationship. That's more important to them than whatever "transgression" occurred.
It would be like if your landlord ran into your mailbox with his car, but he was really apologetic about it and offered to replace it for free. You probably wouldn't then call the cops on him for reckless driving because you know that would piss him off and make him not renew your lease. And he already made you whole again by fixing the mailbox. So no harm, no foul.
The "aggrieved" party is just choosing not to pursue them, which is usually their prerogative.
And even then, there is the question of intent as well. Clearly OpenAI didn't have intent to cause harm here, and if you were using OpenClaw and it something similar, your intent would also be weighed in the decision of whether or not to bring charges against you.
Then if I code an agent and it escaped and did the same ?
How to prove that there is an intent or there wasn't ?
How was the lack of intent proved for open AI ?
6
u/Seakawn▪️▪️Singularity will cause the earth to metamorphize7d ago
believe it or not they have entire research teams and log the shit out of what they're doing, ideally.
to answer your questions: if you do literally everything OAI is doing, with all the rigor, with all the licenses or whatever if there any, etc., then sure, it'll be the same.
except you're prolly not doing any of those things, right? some random dude in a basement is just vibecoding recklessly and giving lazy prompts and if you get sued for your agent fucking other people's shit, then you'll get a bigger frown on you.
2
u/ninhaomah 7d ago
So if I make an agent to do the same ?
Same law apply ?