Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xirdus | Hacker News Reader

The big question is was this grossly negligent or just extremely careless.

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?

Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.

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.

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

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.

The CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.

> The CEOs. They have full control

They lost control long ago.

Why not both? (all people involved)

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?

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.

‘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.

The big question is why are CEOs getting a legal pass when this kind of thing can be prosecuted. That's the problem here.

> why are CEOs getting a legal pass

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v48vp31mdo

nah, 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

Both? I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. It was completely irresponsible and likely a felony

Don’t forget outright intentional.

Marketing actually.

AI is dropping out of the spotlight so they are using desperate measures like this.

No, I remember being threatened by OpenAI and then Anthropic (and now both) since back when ChatGPT was seriously useless.

>> AI is dropping out of the spotlight

spit take

AI 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com