You could say that the human who hooked up an AI that did something that's already illegal is liable for the AI's actions. You could say that setting up an AI to do something illegal results in, ooh, an automatic multiplier of 10x on whatever the penalty for its illegal actions are.
What’s this even supposed to mean? Not enough gravitas in the user name? Would you change your opinion if it was “serious-business”
[1]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-see-ai...
[2]: https://www.axios.com/2026/09/10/openai-hugging-face-senate-...
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/15/us/politics/trump-truth-s...
We keep falling for the same tricks, over and over again. There is no possibility in the current structure of government for this to be a win for the people. For anything to work, we need a structural change in the entire system.
[0] Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2XxgKM2CM0&pp=ygULbm9uIGNvb...
So you can think it's false, but then you look like you are not paying attention.
Instead of what they are doing now, which appears to be actively courting as many of them as possible for vast sums of money.
What I meant was that we do not need to go from the Wild West straight to “anyone who, as an individual, connects a `bad thing` to an LLM will go to jail”
This would be a good idea, but good luck, you'll need it because…
> Instead of what they are doing now, which appears to be actively courting as many of them as possible for vast sums of money.
… it's worse than that.
Anthropic may have wanted some defence sector money, but when they tried to say "no" to certain uses on the quite reasonable grounds ~"WTF are you nuts?" the US government tried to force them to supply it anyway.
And that's before we get "what do you mean by partnership?": people on Hacker News have been critical of the e.g. anti-bioweapons type guardrails on models ("censored", "lobotomised", etc.) since at least GPT-4*, so while "billion dollar mega-project headline" is obviously bad, there's an important sense in which "partnership" goes all the way down to one racial supremacist in a shed asking an LLM for help making ricin.
Here's someone three years ago replying to me to say "There’s no way to build out a wet lab with a chatbot for weapons production. It’s just not feasible. Your example is a fantasy.", and yet here we are in late 2026 with news about AI labs investing in bio wet labs and getting their LLMs to do research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38331225
Good thing it's not a weapons lab, eh? (Would anyone even tell us if they made an agent do weapons?)
* or even GPT-2, if you count all the people mocking them for trying to practice safety while failure was still not a disaster.
You wouldn't download a car.
If your dog bites someone unbidden you bear less responsibility than if you had commanded the dog to attack.
While that is extreme, if there is a high p(doom) it is also reasonable.
We can absolutely do things to control AI and fine or imprison those who can’t control theirs. This is not some inevitable outcome.
We could vaporize these companies tomorrow if we wanted.
No, they can't. The rest of the world would just route around the US with BGP. All of the US infrastructure/service providers would be down, so a ton of things would break, but the Internet would not be "shut down". The US government also no longer has authority over the DNS root servers. So unless you're referring to thermonuclear war or some similar scenario then the US does not have this capability.
For example, there’s one building in Seattle that would cause region-wide problems if it was knocked offline.
They are throwing numbers out like “10%”.
If they are serious and believed then yes, prepare for the possibility of very extreme reactions at a global and potentially nuclear scale.
World Wars flattened cities all over the world for much less.
We can’t talk about AI being the end of the species and not expect the most extreme reactions in global History.
Or maybe we just put some nerds who cant control their agents and keep running their mouths in jail?
* number pulled out of my ass
A good start might be removing virology info above the undergraduate level from training sets. The main "kills everybody" threat involves biological viruses.
AI-driven hacking is a problem, but it's really just nation-state level hacking available to smaller companies or wealthy individuals. Everything needs to be toughened up to the point that doesn't work. Ask countries that have been up against Russian hacking for years, such as Estonia.
Beyond that, most of the threats are not that serious. Below the level of organized crime or corrupt government.
This isn't like vibe coding. The AI would have to make the virus in laboratory conditions and then disseminate it globally without prior detection.
Following the definition set for decades, AI isn't necessarily even as advanced as matrix math
Digital child porn is just ones and zeros. Surely we're not going to pass a law to regulate ones and zeros?
Why?
That's not an accurate description of my intent—or how my comment landed with most readers AFAICT.
Which, if it’s not exactly the same point, I’m pretty sure it at least cuts quite close to the point of your rhetorical question, right? That the problem isn’t with the ones and zeros, it’s with what certain people are doing with the ones and zeros?
My first comment was an attempt to show the "it's just linear algebra" argument in an absurd light.
I think the idea that this technology is ethically neutral needs a discussion.
Because I would argue that the thing that might make an LLM harmful or not is not the underlying technology. It’s the ways its training data were acquired, the purposes for which the model was trained, the applications for which it’s being deployed, etc.
The fixating on “it’s just matrix math” doesn’t feel useful to me. I’m an NLP person and agree that it’s a huge oversimplification. But the original commenter’s purpose was not to educate people about how LLMs work in detail, and so being pedantic about it only serves to steer the conversation in an unedifying direction.
Just is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
What would it mean for a vehicle to be "autonomous", but to "not use AI"?
What do you mean? I can just as easily say that Claude Code operates "without AI". It would make about as much sense.
but I don't think a simple PID controller in the autopilotnmanaging altitude, heading, and the like has ever been categorized as "AI." Cybernetics, maybe.
even the rules managing the flight envelope and MCAS on the 737 Max, or the Airbus implementations of flight law, sure seem to have relatively few of the attributes that tend to get the label these days
Autopilots are autonomous, without AI. lane following and collision avoidance in most cars, don't use "AI" they use classic computer vision and good old fashioned radar.
The difference here is that claude code fails to perform what it's intended to do without a model attached, a plane/car doesn't.
People may confuse AI with Machine Learning. “Classical” computer vision generally means non-learning based techniques. But ML is also not new to computer vision. So non-classical actually means using Deep Learning.
So today when people say AI they actually mean Deep Learning.
Thankfully, courts will look at it differently.
FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
> FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.
You're kidding, right? It's never been an obscure term. If a computer is making decisions, that's AI.
Here's a pretty common usage: https://www.reddit.com/r/broodwar/comments/ixzwl4/are_there_...
> I'm getting back into [Starcraft: ] Brood War after a long break. Don't have the time to play ladder, but want to be able to play 1v1 against AI, however, the stock AI in remastered is terrible
Game AI is invariably called by that term and generally implemented as a fairly simple if-else ladder. In a taxonomy I guess it would be called an "expert system"; I can find them mentioned in the detailed table of contents to AIMA (3rd edition), but not in the simplified table of contents to AIMA (4th). They might still be in there, in the same section titled "Making Simple Decisions". Norvig doesn't really bother to consider expert systems with probabilities constrained to 1 or 0, though.
If a plane could run on some sort of local LLM it should still be governed by the same laws and damages when something goes wrong same as people don't spend time quibbling about the implementation language of software they care about demonstrating capabilities.
The popular definition of AI seems to shift every couple of years to follow hype cycles. Chess computers used to be AI (and fit your definition), now they are not. Not sure if Resnet is still AI today, or if autopilots still qualify
If a basic heading hold PID loop is AI so is a thermostat from 1990. At which point the word is so meaningless it is obviously a useless definition.
AI is not magic it's software, the definition is far from pointless, google maps giving you a route to your destination is AI.
An autopilot is cybernetic without being intelligent.
As I’ve said elsewhere - an autopilot is cybernetic, it responds to inputs and stimulus in data but it doesn’t possess anything we’d now regard as falling under intelligence because it’s a strictly coded deterministic system and designed for it’s specific environment. I couldn’t take the autopilot from a Boeing and put it into an Airbus and hope for any kind of useful result. I could take a human pilot trained on a Boeing and put them in an Airbus or a Cessna, and if push came to shove in an emergency, they could probably do a decent job of getting the thing pointed in the right direction and landed on the ground.
Of course, "AI" in a previous generation was used to refer to machine learning, while "AI" now is used to refer to LLMs. I don't think LLMs are the tool to use to operate a vehicle.
Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application.
In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
> Regulating gun ownership is exactly regulating the application. In your analogy, the gun is the AI. What you can do with the gun is the application.
From what I can tell, you are arguing that gun laws is reasonable.
> Different actors with different credentials in different contexts will have different requirements and permissions of what they can do with the technology, be it a gun or AI.
But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
You aren’t going to repeal the second amendment, so reasonable or not it’s a fact that everyone has to contend with. Do we all want guns? No. Do we all want AI? Also no.
> What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved
No, we don’t want to ban bad. Banning doesn’t really work - the effort to reward ratio isn’t great. We want to regulate bad and see if we can minimize the damage it can do.
"Different actors with different credentials in different contexts"
The argument is that the military or police have a need for access to guns, whereas the lunatic on the street corner (or any random citizen) does not. The same argument applies for access to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons... or autonomous hacking/killing machines...
Level A: Who can drink it (possession and consumption law)
Level B: What you can do while drunk (DUI law)
Level C: What you can do while drinking (open container law)
All orthogonal to things like reckless driving, endangerment and creating injurious accidents, which are already criminalized without needing additional laws against alcohol use to enforce them.
Correct.
> But this, is going against that, this is saying, "why should we ban AI or gun when they can be used for both good and bad. What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved"
Not at all. I'm saying regulations do that and they are a good thing. Not everybody can own an assault rifle. Some of the people who can, are not allowed to carry it on the streets. Police will have very different regulations towards their gun use. The army, another set of regulations. The list goes on. Even in countries who have lax gun laws, usually not all guns are allowed to everyone in all situations. No one is allowed to carry a nuke into a shopping centre.
Note that regulating and banning are very different things. I don't think you can fully ban guns or AI.
Full disclosure: I'm not American and do prefer a little gun regulation generally.
Firearms are an application of more general techniques like combustion, which your car is (probably) using too.
We could definitely draw lines at points where it makes most sense.
AI to detect melanomas is a completely different application than AI for autonomous warfare.
That is, in order to drive a car you need to go through the hoops, follow a training, get a permit that can be taken away again and needs to be renewed, etc. It's not a big jump to also make that apply to guns - which I'm sure is already the case in many states.
I mean you can legally own a gun in most European countries too if you really want to, but there's various mandatory trainings and conditions to comply to, registration procedures, and I'm sure you may get unannounced home visits to double check you've stored your guns (and ammo) correctly. As per the agreement.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Consider how trivial it would be to write a program that would destroy every computer on the world. Any competent developer could write this in a hour. An LLM in 5 minutes. The trick is actually getting the code onto every computer in the world and running it! Until someone grants it agency and runs it IRL, the artifact has zero impact.
The models can produce whatever scary text they want. But if a human acts on it, connects that with their email or their drone weapon, it's the human who bears total responsibility. We desperately need some legislation to enforce this; otherwise I see a future where almost any accountability can be avoided by AI-washing the problem.
This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.