It's not unusual for intent to play part in legal framing of an issue. I'm not very fond of the "cybercrime" angle, as it kind of lets them off the hook if they're able to prove a lack of intent. Meanwhile what we actually see is negligence.

From what I have learned, to charge someone for hacking the prosecutor has to show that the perpetrator had intent.

Unfortunately, gross negligence -- which you could argue to be the case here -- is often not enough, unless you could show that it has caused real harm.

From my perspective, it is only a matter of time before it is: and that's why there is need for better legislation covering what AI models do.

This is a good question (unfortunately a good answer is given in the article), but it is orthogonal to the why LLMs are committing cyber crimes.

That is not obviously true.