Recklessness is a mens rea and given how often OpenAI and its spokespeople talk about safety and alignment, it's hard to argue they were unaware of the risk.

https://lawprof.co/definition/recklessness/

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>it's hard to argue they were unaware of the risk.

So what does it mean for an owner of a german sheppard, who specifically got it because they want a ferocious dog that can bite intruders, then it turned out it bit the mailman? Should that be considered a crime (assault) in addition to paying the mailman's medical bills? That's not to say there's no circumstance where recklessness might be warranted, eg. if you let loose a bear in an elementary school, but you'd have to argue for more than "they hacked someone" and "they knew about the risks".

	▲	Sharlin an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Should that be considered a crime Yes, of course! Negligent cause of injury or whatever it’s called in your particular jurisdiction. Wasn’t difficult to find examples of cases just like that. It would be astonishingly unjust if the postman had to personally sue for damages in civil court! Your stance in this debate is, honestly, flabbergasting.
	▲	shkkmo an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Depending on the facts of the case they could indeed be convicted of a crime. There was a infamous case recently where a woman was convicted of criminally negligent homicide due to owning a dangerous dog that killed a kid. https://www.mcda.us/index.php/news/portland-area-woman-convi... Owning a dog that has been trained to bite intrudes is a significant responsibility and owning such a dog without taking the correct precautions is criminal.