alt Hacker NewsIs it a grey area, though? Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime?
Negligence when you should have known better, and recklessness when you did know better but still did things that led to the crime occurring.
Given how long the leadership of these companies have been talking about alignment and safety and AI risk, it's hard to argue they, and the people working on the models more directly, didn't know what happened (Hugging Face, RubyGems, etc) was possible.
If more expensive and consequential incidents happen, it seems like the legal machinery to prosecute it already exists.
Replies
All crime is a result of people choosing to commit a crime. This is why crime has a pure causal relationship with integrity of character. If Dario and Sama don't choose crime and it just spontaneously happens, then it's not a crime.
> If more expensive and consequential incidents happen, it seems like the legal machinery to prosecute it already exists.
If we instead imagined autonomous robots going and breaking stuff in the adjacent business' warehouse during a test run, I have to imagine a very different response. That this is happening in an abstract digital world (for now) is part of the problem.
> Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime?
The point that I'm trying to make is that there's an opportunity to reduce this ambiguity. Reducing the ambiguity and aligning incentives is much more likely to prevent bad stuff happening than reacting to a fait accompli model with latent humanicidal tendencies.