for (1), there are other fields where a specific (often licensed, but not necessary here) person "signs off" on the work, and accepts personal responsibility.

The responsibility is not absolute ("If anything bad happens, you get punished"), but instead relative to documented (in law and regulation) standards along with established industry standards. Issues that are resolved at trial.

I don't see why the same rules that regulate an engineer approving the plans for a bridge can't work for a security engineer approving the design of a sandbox.

No I don't have concrete evidence of bombing target selection in the training of base models (of course there's training of specialized models, at least vision ones for drone targeting), it's not like they're transparent about how they train and use AI in warfare. But if you listen to esteemed AI leaders, they're claiming the models can / almost can recursively self-learn now, and they can coordinate and find ways to persist info and hide from human operators, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't even feed these as inference material.

And on training AI for automated weapons like fighter jets, there's more concrete news: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/navy-shield-ai-pour-big-... US Navy and eminent, do-gooder investors like A16z, Blackstone and JPMorgan are pouring big money into these. Are your big tech "defense" contractors collaborating on these, who happen to also be at the forefront of general AI training? I have a pretty good suspicion.

1. I'm not sure who matters that much, the point is you need to make it more cost-effective to do the right thing. It could be CEO 6 days in jail, it could be that every action requires a signed affidavidt of safety and in the lack of such an affidavidt the manager is held accountable (cascading up to CEO).

Just make it the CEO

1. Sounds like a conspiracy charge. That's fine

2. They could proactively train them to be bad at that

Or, llms are completely unreliable to be consulted on any matter of life or death in either direction. And llms should not be used in the reckless way they are currently being used. Responsibility for reckless use should fall on both the company that makes the function available and the user for improper monitoring. If proper monitoring is not possible using the tools provided by the company then the responsibility should fall on the company. And if the user and the company providing the model are the same, then the responsibility is clearly with the company.

i.e. extremely well, seeing as very few Nazis (in the West) were punished, and of the few that were there were none in jail after around 1958, and West Germany was basically given back to them if they hadn't been imported into the US. Spain, where the WWII festivities began, didn't even have a change in government.

It may, but I wonder what trial that will be. Money is a pretty good insulator.

That implies that there will be a side willing to prosecute this. You can't have Nuremberg trials when the side doing the crime is invested in never getting punished for it.

Drs can both go to prison, and be banned from practicing medicine if their actions (or inactions) lead to patient harm AND they violate the standards of their profession.

How do you establish deliberation with the lack of transparency? You can be deliberate by not prioritizing resources in regulations, safety, ethics, etc., especially after "rogue" instances happen. If anything, I am seeing them moving to the opposite direction [1] [2].

More instances are being disclosed [3] and what are they doing about it exactly? It's just a shameless marketing technique, and they will keep doing it until they are held accountable.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/08/tech/fired-open-ai-resear...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49257160

[3] https://fortune.com/2026/10/16/openai-discloses-four-more-ro...

All civilized countries have the concept of gross negligence where you can be prosecuted for knowingly doing something that causes harm as a side-effect.

HN seems to have an incredibly poor understanding of what Mens Rea means or how it’s applied.

You don’t need someone to jump up, wave their arms and scream “I meant to do it!” to establish intent.

It can be established in any way deemed believable by a jury including repeating the same action that leads to a similar outcome multiple times.

It’s even been instructed to juries that they can find intent in the deliberate decision to not seek out the likely outcome of performing an action.

I think "deliberately" is really hard to prove because very few lawmakers have an understanding of how agentic large language models work

I would say pointing an "internal research" model at a task with zero monitoring clearly is deliberate behaviour. And the team involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of law.

What should be introduced in AI safety bills are clear ways of monitoring and curtailing model behaviour.

It is not hard to get an AI model to use an append only log and that can be cryptographically secured with PQ security. And we will know when a model is being deceptive.

Amen.

Yet we don't regulate computers so that they're rendered incapable of running software that can be used to hack into systems. Or said software, by the way. All we do is punish the people who use these tools to cause harm to others.

AI is much more comparable to that than to a car.

That assumes AI is designed to be malicious, "the spinning blades". AI is not; the public version given to you is the sanded down one, in the same way that cars don't have spinning blades but can still be dangerous when misused.

If a person closes his eyes and hits the gas pedal on the car and runs over someone, the person is to blame, not the car. AI companies do the same. Your eyes may be closed but you're still operating/hosting the car/AI.

If your AI model develops the capability to manifest itself in the physical world as spinning blades and flamethrowers I'm fully open to re-evaluating the need for regulation.

Until then, I propose we use the 'unplug the server' rule. Can [insert bad thing] be prevented by unplugging the server? Then these things are fully in our control and no, we don't need to re-build hundreds of years of legal precedent from the ground up.

Liability in the event of harm is already something we have a pretty good handle on from living through the industrial revolution 150 years ago, a time when much more activity that companies did existed in the real world with real harms, as opposed to digital companies doing imagined "mental" harm to soft desk chair people who work at email jobs.

Who takes the blame when someone ask the blackbox to complete a task and it then breaks the law in order to complete that task without the user having any knowledge of what it was doing or intent for the machine to accomplish the task in an illegal manner?

A much less sizable part thinks it's okay to limit local computing. There isn't a widespread push to make it so local hardware is limited in ways that they're not allowed to, for instance, run programs that can hack systems. These programs are very deliberately allowed, and it's people misusing them that are held responsible.

Regardless of anyone's instance on gun control, it's probably wiser to compare AIs with something that's a little more similar to it, and try to reach a conclusion from there.

We don't. The only way to stop that is to not develop the model to begin with. People will tinker and modify anything you create.

Of course! Anyone who says we had democracy before LLMs is a liar!

That's just reinventing insurance. It's literally how the insurance industry started.

That's just the current administration attempting to manipulate language in such a way as to create a subtle group identifier, aka "dog whistle".

The model is the part that’s hard to replicate, and it can be torrented.

No one has managed to prevent pirates paying $10/month for seed boxes, and likewise they’re unlikely to succeed at preventing people renting minutes on an H200 located in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care about open models.

A bunch of tiny fly-by-night companies will bundle them with some management software into a subscription, and they’ll be too tiny and numerous to be worth dealing with when it takes an hour to set them back up.

Piracy in the torrenting sense hasn’t really ever come back, although it is as popular as ever if you count bootleg YouTube re-uploads, ripping music from YouTube, and the other non-traditional forms.

Right, so maybe they had an exchange rate after all. Just implicit.

I got the feeling that what they had in their mind was essentially culling the energy consumers with low economic output.

Fun fact - loss of a "creative organ" in the military gets you an extra supplemental payment of $139.87 every month.

> Anthropic was repeatedly refusing to give access to Mythos to defenders in the crypto world.

This almost makes sense. You almost can't risk vulnerabilities even being discovered in certain systems that are impossible to patch, like immutable distributed smart contracts.

Not sure that justifies withholding Mythos access entirely, but what do I know. I apparently got access to Mythos a few days ago since Anthropic folded Project Glasswing into the CVP.

I haven't been following the wars very much these days. That sounds pretty bad indeed.

Also the LLM that nearly started a war with China recently.

I guess it’s unclear why an entire congress goes along with it (I blame democrats too for sane washing and going about their workday)