Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking?

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by andsoitis on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:18AM (#50057700)

> These are the same companies claiming their AIs are sentient

While some employees or executives at the AI companies have either claimed, suggested, or express uncertainty, I don't think a single company has officially said their AI is sentient or conscious.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

Can you point to an official statement that supports your claim?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by jacquesm on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:20AM (#50057723)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by malfist on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:32AM (#50057908)

That's not what they did. They end a chat after repeated, pointless abuse. Sadism towards LLMs shouldn't be enabled because it's a form of self harm. Anthropic says their llms claim there's a 15% chance their sentient, but that's nonsense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by andsoitis on Monday October 12, 2026 @11:22AM (#50057760)

They also cage it. Make of that what you will.

> Anthropic will enforce their rule that you can't insult their AI.

There are carveouts. It isn't a blanket ban.

[ Parent | on HN ]