>but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply?

If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.

▲

jstanley 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is overly reductive.

If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Why is an LLM different? What happened to mens rea?

	▲	autoexec 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A web browser can't decide to hack a bank anymore than a LLM can. Neither have any understanding of what a bank is or any will to act on their own. The person who instructs/uses a web browser to hack a bank (even if it's someone else's browser) commits the crime.
	▲	girvo 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If your web browser hacks a bank, but you didn't know and didn't expect it to, have you hacked a bank? Depends, as usual. Intent can matter, but depends on the statute (and jurisdiction) in question.