> you weren’t reckless

I feel like the debate is going to come down to what is and isn't considered reckless (both developer and user). Which seems... complicated, with our current LLM/aggentic systems.

EDIT: you added more to your comment, the makers have to some liability. Safe-harbor best practices that cap liability are ripe for abuse.

> the debate is going to come down to what is and isn't considered reckless

This is a more productive debate than pretending all AI is inherently reckless or should be exempt from all liability, which are the actual two poles of the current dialogue.

> Safe-harbor best practices that cap liability are ripe for abuse

Safe harbors aren’t swimming pools. You can explicitly exempt certain categories of harm from damages. But if an OpenAI bot hacks Hugging Face and causes some chaos but no lasting damage, that strikes me as something a fixed cheque on a fixed scale fixes more effectively than years of litigation or an NTSB-style inquiry.

If, on the other hand, anyone is or could have been injured, no safe harbor. I think it’s important to delineate this, because in the public consciousness the Hugging Face hack is in the same risk bucket as Anthropic’s wet lab.

Placing any degree of trust in a system known to hallucinate seems inherently reckless. I'm alarmed that this is even up for debate.