Who had criminal intent here? Or are you suggesting a new crime for negligent hacking, which wouldn’t require intent from the perpetrator?

▲

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.

	▲	m4rtink an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Why not both? (all people involved)
	▲	chrisjj 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The CEOs. They have full control They lost control long ago.

▲

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]