> and had no reasonable belief it was possible

The broad concept has been well-known for half a century at least, and the very specific concept for several years at least. It’s clear that they didn’t take reasonable precautions against it. And it’s not even the first time this sort of thing has happened, though it’s higher-profile and -impact than before.

▲

trvz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed, and because of that, I argue it's not just the crime of hacking, but crimes against humanity, due to endangering the existence of the species.

▲

bbor an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The concept of… hacking?

And yes this is absolutely the first time autonomous software has breached containment. What are you referring to? Perhaps just corporate cyber in general?

	▲	shwaj 11 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Neuromancer came out in 1984, over 40 years ago, so that covers the broad concept. Or Neo in The Matrix: “Programs hacking programs… why?” For non-fiction you could look at Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014). More recently, see Cade Metz’s NYT profile of Geoffrey Hinton, “The Godfather of A.I. Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead” (May 1, 2023).
	▲	Sharlin an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The concept of AI breaking out of a box or doing something unintended trying to achieve a goal. OpenAI should be found guilty of gross negligence of some sort, because this was not something that could not have been anticipated, and because their security precautions were laughable. Because the AI itself is not a legal person, it must be OpenAI that's responsible for what it does.