>I dunno what you mean by suggesting crimes committed using computers are ambiguous. I mean the CFAA is vague and all, but more in an overly broad sense, which in this case seems to make it even less ambiguous.
Because the CFAA specifically only includes intentional hacks:
> ... having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization ...
>... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization ...
Of course, the typical retort is that being reckless is basically the same as "intentionally", but you'd need to jump through more hoops to prove what level of care is "reasonable".
When the CFAA was written, it was impossible to trip over something and accidentally hack another computer. Now, with AI, it's possible. Progress, glorious progress...
Technology has progressed, and the laws need to advance with it. Story as old as time!
If the breach wasn't intentional, no person came to immediate personal harm, and either no financial damages resulted or the operator covered any that did, then it isn't clear to me why the law would need to "advance" to transform something apparently benign into a criminal offense.
The agents are clearly not accidentally compromising systems. Seems very easy to trace back the responsible parties here, I really don't put much stock into this argument.
>The agents are clearly not accidentally compromising systems
That would be argument for jailing the agent, but that's not really an option. "Jailing the closest person we can jail" also isn't a recognized legal principle. If your dog mauled someone, it'd be hard to argue that the dog didn't intend to maul that person, but you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either.
I don't know about your country of origin, but in my country you are certainly liable and can go to jail if your dog seriously injures or kills someone.
Edit: the dog will also be taken from you and put down if it is deemed a risk to other people.
It's on you to provide evidence here seeing as you're taking the position that the law places certain responsibilities on people. Someone saying "actually the law doesn't say that" can't (at least in general) reasonably be expected to provide evidence of a negative. (That said, he actually did provide such as refutation to a different comment so perhaps you could just read those nearby?)
> Can you provide examples outside of gross negligence on part of the dog owner?
And the answer is no, I can't. The reason why is because there is essentially no such case. It is basically negligence by definition when your pet hurts someone who didn't cause it directly themselves because it is your responsibility.
So I asked:
> Can you provide an example of where your dog harming someone else is in fact not negligence on your part?
Which is a really easy question to answer and it seems you could not.
criminally liable? Of course you have to pay their medical bills, but unless there was some serious negligence on your side (eg. you let it off leash), you won't be criminally liable.
Yeah, that's an important distinction. Apparently criminal convictions have happened depending on the level of negligence of the dog owner. It gets debated and legally fought when it happens. I don't have strong opinions on it, seems like a very case-by-case type of thing.
At this point it might be fair to say that Open AI is being negligent with a known risk.
They have not caused damage (or enough that a counter party found it worthwhile to sue). They have to pay if they actually cause damage AND someone sues them. Clearly these conditions have not been met, but somehow people feel like some third party (the state?) should just punish OpenAI because of vague feelings.
my next door neighbour told me to eat shit (not a nice woman) and … I didn’t … until obeying what LLMs tell you becomes a law people doing shit because LLM told them is natural selection playing out
Because the CFAA specifically only includes intentional hacks:
> ... having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization ...
>... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization ...
Of course, the typical retort is that being reckless is basically the same as "intentionally", but you'd need to jump through more hoops to prove what level of care is "reasonable".