News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by r3trohack3r on Monday October 12, 2026 @10:58AM (#50057369)
Small nit:

If kitchen knife companies where, in fact, stabbing people to death in their R&D labs - I do believe they would get in trouble for that.

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by ben_w on Monday October 12, 2026 @10:59AM (#50057387)
Or indeed if their QA bots wandered off elsewhere to stab people not even in the R&D lab.

Edit:

related, an actual stab-safety test of current models: https://robocurve.org/roboharm/

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by antonvs on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:04AM (#50057482)
Ripped from the headlines in 2032.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by ben_w on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:11AM (#50057599)
Ah, you're an optimist I see.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by scotty79 on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:03AM (#50057461)
That's actually a very good point. Do you think humanoid robot companies have intent to perform assault since their robots occasionally harm people?

What about car companies?

Going from a design that facilitates potential harm to intent is insane.

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by ben_w on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:07AM (#50057525)
> Do you think humanoid robot companies have intent to perform assault since their robots occasionally harm people?

Mostly, no.

Zuckerberg definitely not, he discusses "superintelligence" in a way that makes it clear he only regards this as a buzzword and has no idea what the implications are.

Anthropic also definitely not, they put their money where their mouth was and got illegally blacklisted for refusing to allow its models to be used for (amongst other things) automated weapons.

Musk, I think probably yes. Seems to regard all AI safety as "woke" or "censorship", is in bed with the US administration that illegally blacklisted Anthropic. If I had to put money on who first releases to the public a Mr Stabby, I'd put it on Musk, with an Optimus.

The rest, I'm less sure about.

> What about car companies?

Depends on the harm, but I'd say probably yes. Infamously, leaded petrol, resisting seatbelts back in the day, even promoting cars over public transport would be part of this if you consider both local and global pollution.

> Going from a design that facilitates potential harm to intent is insane.

Well, it's the difference between negligence and malice.

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by scotty79 on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:02AM (#50057437)
So the company would have intent to murder, if a person got randomly stabbed in their R&D labs with their knife?
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by nicce on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:07AM (#50057521)
The lack of intent in murder usually lowers the penalty for "manslaughter". Both are crimes.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by r3trohack3r on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:25AM (#50057810)
> get in trouble for that

> intent to murder

Two different things

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by scotty79 on Tuesday October 13, 2026 @04:19AM (#50068401)
The only thing I'm objecting to this thread is ascribing intent based solely on the fact that the design might potentially lead to harm.