[baq]

I don’t see how it can’t be both. Yes, it is a felony, unarguably, but it’s also a first of its kind and I’ll be very interested in who law enforcement prosecutes and what the judiciary says about this. Almost everything is a precedent here except ‘somebody got hacked’.

[pocksuppet]

White-hat hackers go to prison for running a scanner on a website and reporting the found vulnerabilities to the website owner without exploiting them. I don't see why this should be any different.

[baq]

It's different since there was no single physical person who executed the hack or even asked for it. Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder and we couldn't technically in any reasonable way commit an accidental hack into a computer system before approximately last month (or last quarter if we consider Mythos previews to be capable of this.)

[dgellow]

Intent is a result of an investigation, it’s not something you need beforehand

[literalAardvark]

It's different for the same reason why AI can't own copyright.

[ses1984]

If someone invents a new weapon to hurt someone, is the first inflicted injury unprecedented?

[breppp]

Intent is a major part of a crime severity, and it's hard to attribute intent to OpenAI here

[ses1984]

There can be crime without intent, like manslaughter.

[dgellow]

The intent is something that has to be determined as part of the investigation and following judgement. But will we see an actual investigation by law enforcement?

[stronglikedan]

It's not a first of it's kind. AI is a hammer, and the one wielding the hammer is responsible for those hurt by the hammer. It's a classic case of the powerful not being held accountable. It's a tale as old as time.