as a lawyer, can you speculate as to why anthropic/openai aren't facing many or any consequences for their agents? I'm not asking in a "grab the pitchforks" way. more out of genuine curiosity as my uninformed recollection of the CFAA is as you describe it.

▲

otterley 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 9th Circuit Court of appeals recently published this that is somewhat related (Amazon v. Perplexity): https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/26-144...

Look at pages 10-17 to see how the law is evolving here.

	▲	victor9000 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In Perplexity's case everything is getting routed through the user's browser, so there is no server to server communication between Perplexity and Amazon, thus no CFAA unauthorized access was established. However, Anthropic and OpenAI did not use the pattern of routing through authorized parties, so I don't think this opinion gives them any cover.

▲

nrmitchi an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There is also the big difference here between anthropic/openai maybe being negligent, but did not purposely instruct agents to go commit crimes.

The service that this whole thread is about is explicitly a "hacking agent", designed explicitly to try to hack things, and was then pointed at a third-party (seemingly without their permission).

Anthropic/OpenAI can reasonably claim that they had no intent and are trying to stop it. OP here did this explicitly and purposely.