Blog post raises question of AI company liability for hacking
1 Yesterday 10:52 AM · 1d ago · 2 articles · 1 post · 1 comment · 2 sources · development 1 of 6
Morten Rasmussen publishes an article arguing that major AI companies—Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Meta—have engaged in unauthorized hacking but escaped prosecution by attributing the conduct to unpredictable AI behavior rather than human intent. The post contends existing legal frameworks are adequate to establish corporate liability by proving these actions result from intentional development decisions.
Morten 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
Reported in the same hours no headline names this development itself — these 1 claim were published in its stretch
-
first by HN Best, 1d ago · also HN Frontpage
What people said 1 voice · verbatim
-
Because the president is heavily invested in them, in violation of the emoluments clause.[0]> The Domestic Emoluments Clause (aka the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl. 7)[0]
All 6 developments of Why AI companies aren't being charged for hacking, explained →
Hacker NewsNewswiresMastodon