Are you sincerely arguing that we hold tools accountable for their operator’s mistakes? Do you sincerely, honestly, think that it makes any sense whatsoever to put a hammer on trial for bashing someone’s skull in?
Nope, as I previously stated elsewhere:
"I understand from a legal perspective why we might want to treat the creation of a server differently from the creation of a human"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49815300
I am concerned about false reassurance from people claiming that these systems lack agency. From a practical perspective, the agents in the HF attack had the sort of agency that generally matters, even if we're not going to put them on trial.
You keep saying this, but absolute 0 points towards any of the agents involved deciding on their own, without influence of humans, to hack 3rd party infrastructure to get the answers. Where exactly are you getting that from? Internal information not public yet or what's going on?
On the morning of July 10, an agent found working Hugging Face user credentials exposed on the internet and posted them to the board. By the next morning, July 11, that agent figured out a way to read internal data from Hugging Face. And then another agent achieved remote code execution on Hugging Face servers."
https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggingface
I believe this is the full report that the blogpost is largely based on: https://metr.org/hugging-face-incident-report-aug-2026.pdf
Do you seriously not grok how LLMs work? They're not 100% autonomous and self-acting, that'd be bananas.