For example: thievery, extortion, murder, etc. are already well-established crimes.
Putting "cyber" or "AI" in front of them makes it the same crime.
I'm really interested in what is actually new about these rules.
Beyond that, there's always tort law, which doesn't require intent.
And for negligence, there's a bit of an issue where the HF hack was probably more scary than damaging. HF is asking for compute as repayment instead, which would be fun because it completes the OpenAI -> HuggingFace -> NVIDA -> OpenAI cycle.
Your statement is a logical puzzle about responsibility.
It implies that a law prevents responsibility. The opposite is true. Preventing harm is a concern that might form laws. But for many forms of harm, existing laws suffice and should lead to responsibility.
Shifting responsibility can be done in many ways, such as calling for a regulator. Like the law isn’t a regulator in the first place.