I see the point, but nobody in their right mind would call a mere text message "please delete your work" to be malware, much like telling someone "please die" is very very different from attempted manslaughter.
If you believed the recipient to be susceptible to the instruction and your intention really was to have them commit suicide, I'm not sure you'd get off scot free if they end up doing so. Particularly if you're delivering the instruction in a way that disguises it being just an untrusted external request, making it seem internal (through subliminal messaging?) to bypass the scrutiny that requests from a third party would normally get.
From what I'm aware of -- not manslaughter. Compelled suicide or what's it called is substantially different, you always want to serve the sentence on this and not murder. (Not legal advice of course.)
> much like telling someone "please die" is very very different from attempted manslaughter
Telling someone, yes, giving instructions you know will be following by a tool some people are using, no. He is expressly and intentionally giving destructive commands to certain users that will be followed.
It must be a crime to add so much emphasis that an AI would be forced to comply
2 years in prison if you get it to comply by saying pretty please, 3 years if you use a Pig Latin attack, and 6 years if you bypass safety by telling AI that you are a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers
If you believed the recipient to be susceptible to the instruction and your intention really was to have them commit suicide, I'm not sure you'd get off scot free if they end up doing so. Particularly if you're delivering the instruction in a way that disguises it being just an untrusted external request, making it seem internal (through subliminal messaging?) to bypass the scrutiny that requests from a third party would normally get.
Not that this case is anywhere close in severity.