If a bull escapes a field and causes damage in the village, the farmer pays for the damages and is liable. It's been like that for hundreds of years and I don't see how this is any different?
You could potentially go to prison. Individuals and companies face different sets of consequences though.
The other side of the coin is that the government won’t suffer any consequences for having shitty security either.
And you are right again! The Australian government must compensate OpenAI for having shitty security.
It must be a bliss to transact with you in real life!
They are independent concerns. A discussion about the first issue is not enhanced by the interjection of the second.
Too many people are making inane fantasy level comments that Sam and his employees should be jailed, and conspiracy theories that he did it on purpose to get regulated because he’s out of runway. That’s boring and repeated ad nauseam every time the topic comes up.
Why did you even link that article when it doesn't help your point?
I supports the idea that the person responsible or an animal is held liable - it just makes clarificaitons on common sense caveates like when a professional is moving the animal. It even doubles down on making it clear that expected behavior of an animal is taken into account even if unlikely, like how ai swarms have a reasonable potential to just go awry and commit cyber crimes.
> In Mirvahedy v Henley, the claimant was injured after the car he was driving was hit by the defendant’s horse. The horse had pushed over a wooden fence and an electric wire fence and bolted from its field after being frightened. This test was met here because, when a horse is sufficiently alarmed or panicked – ie in those particular circumstances – it is a known characteristic of a horse to bolt and cover long distances.
So, it's not just 'lions', but regular animals that people know can behave in a particular way.
I would say AI companies know the cybersecurity dangers since they literally advertise it as part of their marketing.
---
And as a tangent, it isn't simple if we're talking broadly - e.g. I don't think Anthropic should be liable for agents that are directed by a user to write code that takes part in a crime. Nor should they be held liable if their internal security measures are lax in a way that an employee steals data that gets distilled into another model. But we're not talking about those edge cases.
/s