Both. This should result in criminal charges.
replyWho had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?
replyThere'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".
replyWhoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.
replyAlso 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.
replyThe CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything.
replyWhy not both? (all people involved)
reply> The CEOs. They have full control
replyThey lost control long ago.
‘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.
reply[dead]
replyBoth? I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. It was completely irresponsible and likely a felony
replyDon’t forget outright intentional.
replyMarketing actually.
replyAI is dropping out of the spotlight so they are using desperate measures like this.
replyNo, I remember being threatened by OpenAI and then Anthropic (and now both) since back when ChatGPT was seriously useless.
reply>> AI is dropping out of the spotlight
replyspit take
The big question is why are CEOs getting a legal pass when this kind of thing can be prosecuted. That's the problem here.
reply> why are CEOs getting a legal pass
replyAI is literally state sponsored so I don't see that happening unless the AI turns against the sponsor.
replyWait until OpenAI or Anthropic exploit FAANG.