3 ms·

Both. This should result in criminal charges.

by rglover 17d ago

brookst 17d ago
Who had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?
- rglover 17d ago
  Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.
  - tacomagick 17d ago
    Also 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 17d ago
  There'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 16d ago
    Reckless 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 17d ago
  The CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.
  - chrisjj 17d ago
    > The CEOs. They have full control They lost control long ago.
  - m4rtink 17d ago
    Why not both? (all people involved)
  - brookst 16d ago
    Cool. 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 13d ago
      CEOs 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 17d 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 17d ago
  [dead]

Both. This should result in criminal charges.

by rglover 17d ago

Both. This should result in criminal charges.

Who had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?

rglover 17d ago
Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.
- tacomagick 17d ago
  Also 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 17d ago
There'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 16d ago
  Reckless 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 17d ago
The CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.
- chrisjj 17d ago
  > The CEOs. They have full control They lost control long ago.
- m4rtink 17d ago
  Why not both? (all people involved)
- brookst 16d ago
  Cool. 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 13d ago
    CEOs 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 17d 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 17d ago
[dead]