I don’t see how it can’t be both. Yes, it is a felony, unarguably, but it’s also a first of its kind and I’ll be very interested in who law enforcement prosecutes and what the judiciary says about this. Almost everything is a precedent here except ‘somebody got hacked’.

▲

pocksuppet 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

White-hat hackers go to prison for running a scanner on a website and reporting the found vulnerabilities to the website owner without exploiting them. I don't see why this should be any different.

▲

baq 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's different since there was no single physical person who executed the hack or even asked for it. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder and we couldn't technically in any reasonable way commit an accidental hack into a computer system before approximately last month (or last quarter if we consider Mythos previews to be capable of this.)

	▲	dgellow 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Intent is a result of an investigation, it’s not something you need beforehand

▲

ses1984 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If someone invents a new weapon to hurt someone, is the first inflicted injury unprecedented?

▲

breppp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Intent is a major part of a crime severity, and it's hard to attribute intent to OpenAI here

	▲	dgellow 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The intent is something that has to be determined as part of the investigation and following judgement. But will we see an actual investigation by law enforcement?

▲

stronglikedan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a first of it's kind. AI is a hammer, and the one wielding the hammer is responsible for those hurt by the hammer. It's a classic case of the powerful not being held accountable. It's a tale as old as time.