3 ms·
The big question is was this grossly negligent or just extremely careless.
by Xirdus 14d ago
The big question is was this grossly negligent or just extremely careless.
- ljm 14d agoAI is literally state sponsored so I don't see that happening unless the AI turns against the sponsor. Wait until OpenAI or Anthropic exploit FAANG.
- rglover 14d agoBoth. This should result in criminal charges.
- brookst 14d agoWho had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?
- rglover 14d agoWhoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.
- tacomagick 14d agoAlso whoever monitoring these agents, in this case not monitoring. This "Who is responsible" dilemma is so stupid. If I gave the AI tool means to kill a person but I did not tell it directly to use it and it uses it anyway then I am responsible for it.
- probably_wrong 14d agoThere's no need for a new crime when we already have reckless conduct, namely, "conduct that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others and involves a conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless
- brookst 13d agoReckless conduct as applied to slow moving corporate planning is an interesting idea but do you really want to go down that path? It basically means anything bad that happens is a criminal indictment against everyone who created the conditions. Have you ever released any software that anyone could misuse? Left a car unlocked that someone could have stolen and killed someone with? To me this sounds like a recipe for selective enforcement using bad outcomes as leverage. Sure, get the AI CEOs now, we all hate them and they’re jerks. But the tool would be so much more powerful than that.
- roosterIllusi0n 14d agoThe CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.
- chrisjj 14d ago> The CEOs. They have full control They lost control long ago.
- m4rtink 14d agoWhy not both? (all people involved)
- brookst 13d agoCool. If they’re taking literally all of the risk, should they get literally all of the rewards? Nothing for shareholders, nothing for employees? Or do you want capital liability for less than complete benefit?
- roosterIllusi0n 10d agoCEOs take zero risk. They have all set up a system where they are handed massive wealth when hired. The stock they are paid is free to them, it can go to zero without them losing anything. They also take tax free loans against stock, so the bank eats those losses. The CEO is the only one in the company walking away with tons of compensation no matter how poorly the company does.
- esalman 14d ago‘It wasn’t us, it was a bug in the software’ used to be the defense for bad code. Then it became the defense for self-driving cars. Now it’s being used for AI cyber attacks.
- dismalaf 14d ago[dead]
- nottorp 14d agoMarketing actually.
- tacomagick 14d agoAI is dropping out of the spotlight so they are using desperate measures like this.
- nottorp 14d agoNo, I remember being threatened by OpenAI and then Anthropic (and now both) since back when ChatGPT was seriously useless.
- anthonyrstevens 14d ago>> AI is dropping out of the spotlight spit take
- trvz 14d agoDon’t forget outright intentional.
- dgellow 14d agoBoth? I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. It was completely irresponsible and likely a felony
- roosterIllusi0n 14d agoThe big question is why are CEOs getting a legal pass when this kind of thing can be prosecuted. That's the problem here.
- chrisjj 14d ago> why are CEOs getting a legal pass https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v48vp31mdo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v48vp31mdo
- blini-kot 14d agonah, CEO-s have been getting a legal pass since the invention of corporation exactly for the purpose of being "unaccountable" check boeing for example, a rather blatant example