|
| ▲ | probably_wrong 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's no need for a new crime when we already have reckless conduct, namely, "conduct that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others and involves a conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless |
|
| ▲ | rglover 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything. |
| |
| ▲ | tacomagick 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also whoever monitoring these agents, in this case not monitoring. This "Who is responsible" dilemma is so stupid. If I gave the AI tool means to kill a person but I did not tell it directly to use it and it uses it anyway then I am responsible for it. |
|
|
| ▲ | roosterIllusi0n 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The CEOs. They have full control and make all the decisions. Charging anyone else would not stop anything. |
| |
|
| ▲ | esalman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ‘It wasn’t us, it was a bug in the software’ used to be the defense for bad code. Then it became the defense for self-driving cars. Now it’s being used for AI cyber attacks. |
|
| ▲ | dismalaf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
