News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by Smoosh on Monday October 12, 2026 @06:10PM (#50063772)
An aspect that I’m not seeing discussed here (which you touch upon) is that these companies have bred the dogs. If they breed a pit bull instead of a labrador and then set it loose, it increases their culpability. I have to ask, how do the agents know how to do this backing? Is it emergent behaviour or were they trained to do it? If they were trained for it then it can hardly be surprising when they do indeed go and hack when asked to complete a task.
Re:Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking? by no-name-here on Tuesday October 13, 2026 @04:22AM (#50068428)
So I guess if an LLM lab puts in place restrictions to try to avoid harmful activity, that would lower culpability? But if an LLM does not have as strong restrictions, there should be higher culpability? We have both open and closed models - would this apply to both? Is the culpability on the labs and/or the end-users, such as if someone uses an open model (either with stronger or minimal restrictions)?