359
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
359 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
88814 readers
5575 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think this is suggesting that all AI models have restrictions. Yes, some people will ignore those restrictions, but at least there will be some recourse as there will be actual rules put in place. If a company or an individual does something reckless with AI that affects another company or individual negatively the offender may be able to currently say "it wasn't me it was the AI/I didn't know". They may not have technically broken any rules since the current law is not able to account for AI agents acting somewhat autonomously. If there are rules in place then at least we can point to that and say "it doesn't matter that you did not explicitly instruct it to do X, you should have had the following things in place to prevent that".
The fact that some people may be able to run local models and may never be caught does not mean that we shouldn't have the infrastructure in place to stop the harm where and when we can.
Technology is famously hard for the law to keep up with, but I don't think that's what's going on here. We have laws for when a person uses a technical tool to obtain unauthorized access, exfiltrate data, or do other malicious things. These don't necessarily require any specific intent. If you've set up an AI tool and pointed it in the direction of hacking without proper airgapping, you've probably violated the CFAA if you're in the US when it's successful. Other countries generally have similar laws. Prosecutors don't need to try someone if it's really ambiguous or unclear what they actually did. Is this really unreasonable under the legal system?
To the extent there's a gap, it's the system around the law. Lawyers and judges aren't technical experts, and may not recognize "it wasn't me, it was the ai" as the same argument as "it wasn't me who shot him, it was my gun", in that it's usually foolish and unserious, but there can be a convoluted scenario in which it's a good argument.