Hacker News discussion focuses on intent, negligence, and manufacturer liability
2 Yesterday 11:04 AM · 1d ago · 2 comments · 1 source · development 2 of 6
Commenters begin debating whether AI companies can be held criminally liable. Key tensions emerge: some argue the distinction between manufacturer and user liability is being ignored; others counter that gross negligence or recklessness may satisfy mens rea requirements; and several note that private restitution between companies often resolves such disputes outside court.
“The real answer is that except in the case of OpenAI, the AI companies aren't actually themselves doing the hacking. It's a company called Irregular that did the hacking.”
kccqzyMorten Rasmussen AuthorAnthropic AI companyOpenAI AI companyGoogle AI companyMeta AI company
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 2 voices · verbatim
-
In case you were wondering why Anthropic last week banned "verbally abusive" language towards its agents: this is 100 percent why. Because if they get you to believe - even a little bit - that their platform is "sentient" it means _they_ aren't as liable for criminal consequences.
-
The real answer is that crime generally requires mens rea. At some point, however, letting your AI break into other systems will be conventionally understood as an act of negligence, and it will get prosecuted accordingly. We're not at that point yet.
All 6 developments of Why AI companies aren't being charged for hacking, explained →
Hacker NewsNewswiresMastodon