No one 'gave the program free rein' in any of those examples, did they? Reasonable safeguards were in place.

Many of these incidents relate to hacking, where criminal law commonly requires intent.

Claiming that a machine cannot make a decision does not mean an employee at OpenAI decided to hack an Australian government website.

▲

Leynos an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Inadequate or broken safeguards do not fall under my definition of reasonable.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		OK, but one of the examples in the source article was a report from third-party testing of those safeguards. I feel like you're starting from an unexplored presumption that adequate safeguards must be easy to build and anyone who doesn't build them is just being lazy.

▲

amelius an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI is irresponsible technology, because we have no idea how it works or how to contain it. It's worse than writing code that suffers from SQL injection vulnerabilities because at least in that case we know how to fix it.

The AI labs say "AI can make mistakes". That's why the responsibility of using it is on you.

▲

juliushuijnk an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They did.