Well, there is the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) which fines manufacturers for security flaws in their products. I assume we cannot apply it here because this happened "in development" and is not about a product. I can imagine similar regulations for AI users though.

Yeah but the scale of the damage possible by OpenAI and Anthropic is drastically disproportionate to the scale of damage me or you could make on our own as well. They should definitely be held to a much higher standards. They have hardware capacity to really do some damage.

People were executed and/or sent to labor camps for their negligence in Chernobyl.

>Question: If a corporation not a person, mistakenly hacks some random websites

How does a "corporation" even hack a site? You might say "employees", but as soon as you get them involved then you'd go after them, especially for something that's obviously illegal like hacking.

Nothing. The person doing the hacking did the crime, they do the time. How you gunna jail an AI?

"corporations" don't make and operate AI's, People do. But let's use your lens.

The "usual legal action": "best case" is the corporation is sued and charged money for the hack. But they likely settle well before that verdict. "worst case": absolutely nothing. Not even a cheap settlement. Maybe some corporate apology made to prevent any legal liability.

If we want hacks to be taken seriously: what should happen is that the CEO of such a company is held liable, since the "corporation" has a representative and a human needs to be held liable for such actions.

[flagged]

I'm not really into politics outside of local politics (I decided long ago to steer my focus on things that directly affect me, that I can control - I can show up to a town meeting, hardly can drive to the WH and get entry), so I'm not aware of what tech bros are into, but after finding out how many felonies these models are committing, I'd not be upset if we'd ban them from public use. I'm perfectly fine using Sonnet or Opus, not sure I need all of Fable to write code for $20 or whatever per million tokens.

> Never been a better time to do crime!

* (If you have significant amounts of wealth for payoffs and/or are doing the crime in the service of a certain pumpkin spice flavored authoritarian).

You can grab the economy by the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, Anthropic will enforce their rule that you can't insult their AI. That should count for something.

There is such a thing as criminally negligent.

From "negligence" if it's a surprise, to "gross negligence" if they could predict it and didn't put barriers in place. In fact they claim their IA can end the world, so they're in charge of pretty good barriers.

It feels like plotting to end the world should be a crime, but maybe that's just me?

For example, lack of clarity on ownership and control. When an entity A runs an agent X designed by an entity B hosted by entity C (and potentially interacting with agents X2, X3 with their own web of control) it is not clear where the responsibility for the action of X is.

I know there is a strong desire to stick it to <pick an evil AI overlord>, but for the law to be useful (and, ideally, at least somewhat fair) we need a good legal framework. Which we do not have right now; otherwise people and NGOs would be shaking that tree already even if the government is not doing that.