That would be a start - what you think of the narrative is moot, what we do is what matters.
Nobody sensible in this discussion wants to give them carve outs and bail outs. It is a straw man.
The argument for prosecution is actively hindered by this language of "rogue agents" [2]:
> The incident is remarkable not just as a cybersecurity breach, but as a legal stress test. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the primary federal statute governing unauthorized computer access, was written decades ago with human intruders in mind.[4] Its key provisions require intentional or knowing unauthorized access (a mental state that maps neatly onto a person who decides to break into a system), but what happens when the hacker is an AI model that selected its own target?
I think this is BS. OpenAI knew exactly what they were doing. Legal scholars, long known for their deep technical expertise, are still acting confused and uncertain.
[1] https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artifi...
[2] https://law.vanderbilt.edu/when-ai-hacks-back-how-the-openai...
Yep - fair on legal details of "rogue agent". I think OpenAI should be directly responsible, and the agent was rogue. We should pass new laws if necessary.
if you read the bill it's right there: "Pausing advanced AI development: until a new, federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model review processes to ensure safe and secure development and deployment of AI"
Openai/anthropic already have frontier models. a new competitor is blocked. this is textbook regulatory capture