> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame.

Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

▲

arctic-true an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How are you going to figure that out? You can’t capture an agent in a jar and convince it to confess. As we saw with the HF incident, even highly sophisticated actors need a good chunk of time and manpower to trace these things. And I suspect the folks who are going to have the most success with LLM-powered cybercrime are going to know how to cover their tracks reasonably well.

▲

FeteCommuniste an hour ago | parent [-]

"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.

▲

arctic-true an hour ago | parent [-]

Difference there is you need a physical body firing the ghost gun. There can be witnesses who saw a shooter, you can look at cameras to track their physical location, and if they discard the weapon they leave fingerprints.

	▲	skinfaxi 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Someone (or some group) made the thing. I can't just create a bomb and leave it alone and when it goes off blame the bomb.

▲

sodapopcan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If that's how it was, most people would be too terrified to use, let alone pay for, software that boasts unpredictability as a main feature.

I 100% agree with you, of course.

	▲	skinfaxi 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The unpredictability should be constrained though. Just like how you are never supposed to point a gun at someone/something you want to exist. Ever.