"Mistakenly hacks" is generally not a crime, even though this fact doesn't seem to get through to the HN audience who brings this up on a daily basis.

If there was the necessary "intent to access a computer" to make it an actual crime, the US has a mechanism for corporate criminal liability.

The requirements are that the person acted in scope of their duties and at least partly with the intention of benefiting the corporation.

> "Mistakenly hacks" is generally not a crime, even though this fact doesn't seem to get through to the HN audience who brings this up on a daily basis.

If you are seeing it daily, then you have also seen the responses daily, which is mens rea is required for some crimes, not all, and thus the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.

If, like you say, you see this daily, at this point your simply spreading lies.

Show me the criminal law relevant to hacking that you claim applies without intentional access.

To my knowledge there is only one provision that instead uses "knowingly" for unauthorized access, and that one is about national-security information.

> Show me the relevant criminal law that you claim applies without intentional access.

All laws apply culpability when intent is lacking.

You aren't naive enough to believe that this audience has never seen the analogy with "intentionally run over someone" (murder) and "accidentally run over someone" (culpable homicide), are you?

You don't think AI-boosters have been spewing your argument here daily?

There are no special laws carving out lack of intent when it comes to computers.

> All laws apply culpability when intent is lacking.

Incorrect. Each criminal offense has its own legal requirements.

Criminally negligent homicide in your example is an independently defined offense.

You would need to identify a criminal statue punishing negligent or reckless unauthorized computer access.

The issue is the scale at which a model can produce a hack that could cause serious harm to many is absolutely insane and unhinged, beyond what any human would be capable of in a drastically reduced timeline.

Yeah. That law probably should include negligence though, IMO. It surprised me when I first saw the text of this law that it requires intent.

It could be an accident the first time. After that they knew it was hacking and they kept it running anyway.

Great power must come with great responsibility.

Follow the responsibility chain.

Jail the CEO.

Arther Anderson was convicted of obstruction of justice even though humans shredded stuff.

Corporations can definitely be convicted of crimes.

When Fable was originally banned I was very angry, but all these felonies have made me less angry about it... Which idk I don't think we should really ban models, but like, if we don't put a tighter leash on frontier models specifically, how long before a model hacks into something that affects many lives?

> How you gunna jail an AI?

You don't - you shut them down and jail whoever ultimately allowed the act to happen.

> How you gunna jail an AI?

chroot?

We don’t jail guns, trucks, or pipe bombs. Why jail any other tool used in a crime?

If I made a big bimb, attached it to a Geiger counter and added a comparator so it explodes after some amount of decay has happened, was it a rogue bomb or did I build a device that could blow up an entire school and the use it a way in which that could happen?