"Inadvertent" from the perspective of the humans directing them. The intent behind the felony comes from the LLM agent itself. (No, I'm not interested in arguing with someone for the umpteenth time that LLMs can't have intent or agency)

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

with how the law is written today, software cannot be charged with a crime, so the only intent that matters in the criminal sense is the humans directing the llm.

▲

jdiff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You may not be interested in arguing but there are several blatant issues with the statement. If you're not charging the humans driving the software, who are you charging? The weights? The weights + the specific context window that produced the behavior?

	▲	not_wyoming an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think this is a difficult question. The US has a history of civil product liability cases - see tobacco companies (Philip Morris), the Ford Pinto, the recent Meta cases, and the cases against character.ai. From Investopedia [1], "[f]or a product liability claim to succeed, the plaintiffs in the suit must prove that a product was defective at the time it was transferred from the accused, and that the defect did cause the injury that's been claimed". It doesn't seem like a huge leap to me to argue that these models were defective insofar as they could not be safely used in a way that did not break the law. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing that this is legally cut-and-dry, but I do expect that we'll have some answers about whether AI companies bear any sort of product liability sooner than later. 1 - https://www.investopedia.com/the-5-largest-u-s-product-liabi...

▲

IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> No, I'm not interested in arguing with someone for the umpteenth time

... why my claim makes no rational sense.