So they are either staggeringly incompetent or they’ve made a product that’s too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Which is it?
Both?
I mixed bleach and ammonia, am I staggeringly incompetent, dangerous or both?
why are the executives of these companies not being held liable for computer misuse crimes?
if someone intentionally hacks into another system, thats a crime.
but building some LLM which manages to do it isnt a crime?
Because they are upper class
No, they’re ruling class.
non working class
the battle is working class vs non, and about 33% of the working class are uneducated as fuck and insist the evil dems are out to give them free healthcare
Upperclass is still working class, though.
In my eyes this is no different than Autistici/Inventati. Both made a “tool”. That tool was misused by someone. Both should be held to the same standards.
(Yes, we all know why they aren’t)
What misuse did A/I user(s) get up to? I haven’t seen anything indicating actual crimes.
I’d never heard of them, but it seems like their services were made mostly redundant by modern E2EE offerings anyway. There is no reason to use them over protonmail and signal.
“The anarchist cells responsible for sabotaging rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in 2026, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attacks, publish official communiqués, and disseminate manuals for constructing improvised incendiary devices to target railways and other critical infrastructure.”
Supposedly used the tools to coordinate their attacks. I haven’t looked into the truth of it because ultimately I don’t care because as you said, any modern e2ee offering could have been chosen.
Anthropic’s LLM is not a person with its own personal liability. It’s a tool that Anthropic uses.
Holding A/I responsible for the actions of anarchists that use their platform is like holding Google/Android responsible for the anarchists that use their platform.
Holding Anthropic responsible for the actions of Claude is like holding a person responsible for the actions of the gun that is in their hand.
This line of reasoning is faulty. So if a cyber criminal instructs claude to commit crimes then it’s not their fault because the tool committed the crimes? What if it commits crimes that were never intended by the user? Who accepts liability? Claiming negligence, ignorance of the law, or “accident” does not absolve you from manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
The answer here is very simple. If you are building a tool and through negligence, reckless endangerment, or sheer incompetence your tool poisons or kills people — if it commits fraud, espionage, cyber crime, or any crime — you are liable. If you sell the product, then your customers have to accept liability for any crimes committed via their prompts. If neither you or your customers can accept liability, that means AI is too stochastic to control, or you aren’t competent enough to firewall and sandbox your AI “tool” in a way that prevents it from committing crimes, and you shouldn’t be allowed to build or operate those tools at all; definitely not selling it as a product.
You either accept liability, or you don’t have a legal, moral, or ethical right to operate. Open AI and Anthropic — all of humanity atm — are consistently proving they aren’t competent enough to contain AI, therefore they’re not competent enough to build or operate it.
Anthropic confesses to fourth crime. When is someone going to be charged?
Never going to happen as long as the fascists or neoliberal capitalist dictatorship is ruling America.
“Bad Claude! Bad! You shouldn’t do that!” ~Dario “George Costanza” Amodei
Also, he’s for sure going to dump Camilla for a botox bitch within ten years.
Press F to doubt
