> it's unlikely that the author of an algorithm that ultimately decides on its own to take actions that would probably violate the law if performed by a human w

> it's unlikely that the author of an algorithm that ultimately decides on its own to take actions that would probably violate the law if performed by a human would be held accountable for its actions. You maybe right about how the courts and regulators will find in this matter. But if you build a machine that breaks the law on your behalf and you knew this was a possible outcome then you are obviously culpable. To come to another conclusion requires an inordinate amount of mental gymnastics. And in this decade's climate, it's quite possible those gymnastics win the day. Consider more hypothetically: someone whips up a truly magnificent algorithm to make cash for him anyway what-so-ever, not just on the exchange. The programer made no effort to preclude illegal actions because that is essentially impossible. This hypothetical super program occasionally finds the best way to make money is reselling pirated movies and web based child porn and deposing the revenue straight into the programmers account. You watch how fast the courts ban the practice and finds him culpable without a shadow of a doubt.