The next step is demanding anyone who wishes to release a Certified Safe AI™ model to prove they can insure the $1B in damages and pass a compliance audit for how they will prevent the LTM death count from reaching 50, effectively making it so that only big labs can serve government and enterprise.
It’s going to be fun reading the reasoning transcripts where it argues with itself over whether it can afford to spend 1 or 2 human lives on the current task.
Do we even know if ChatGPT's sycophancy killed 50 people? The last figure I've seen for suicide-by-ChatGPT was like 13 or 14 cases, not sure if there have been more.
This alleviates them from harm on the individual level, consumers and communities, we the people. We've already seen encouraged suicides and school shootings. These would not qualify.
That is why the bar is set where it is. The corporate circle jerk designed this as a cost of doing business, not as a check on responsibility or restitution for real damages to people and society.
Who's keeping score? Also define "death". If a non-alive person has social media, a blog, a diary, meeting recordings, emails - we'll make it so they never left. Hell, we'll partner with Elon and Mark and a make it a deactivation hook.
Yes, and if Anthropic are trying what people are saying they are, that would be intentional. $1B could be reached quickly if cyberattacks supported by AI count.
This seems to be a case where Anthropic just can't win in the public court, and the other big ones (Google, Microsoft) have realized it / don't care enough, so they are rather quiet. Anthropic constantly gets accused of trying to lobby for regulation in order to lock out smaller competitors, but they've consistently lobbied for regulation aimed at frontier labs with exceptions for smaller labs. That's what this bill is about as well.
> "regulation aimed at frontier labs with exceptions for smaller labs"
I didn't read it that way. This is a bill that would ban open-weight models (good ones); effectively mandating gated-access, locked-down, high-refusal rate services, like what Anthropic provides.
Free software is incompatible with the requirement that it be impossible to abuse it.
Every play made by these companies aligns with what you’d do if you have a $1T valuation to protect against an industry that seems increasingly commoditizable.
If that was the move, you'd expect they'd be actively fear-mongering against open models specifically: not just their training, but their usage and deployment. They'd want to paint open models as dangerous weapons for terrorists, etc, and that only the big firms are capable of responsible engineering and "guardrails".
Instead, we've seen the opposite: all the big scary stuff has been from their own models (in a few notable cases, also demonstrating that they're actually quite irresponsible in their monitoring and security).
"We need to outlaw single-prop planes, they're a risk to the public: only Boeing has the ability to produce planes safely. How do we know single-prop planes are dangerous? Because Boeing planes keep falling out the sky."
I don't know if that analogy holds. You don't normally blame Toyota for car crashes, but the driver. If you must use a car analogy, consider the 2010 Toyota recalls rather than just normal car crashes.
That is to say, anthropic should be considered responsible, not (or not just) the users.
Yet we don't regulate computers so that they're rendered incapable of running software that can be used to hack into systems. Or said software, by the way. All we do is punish the people who use these tools to cause harm to others.
Technically no, but you can distribute software, especially for free, that happens to break copy protection for one or more valid reasons, according to the law.
And, more importantly, we certainly don't try to limit the capabilities of computing that might be used to do those things. Given how AIs are very general purpose tools, the fact that they can be used to do something potentially harmful is too narrow a threat.
Nobody is trying to push for cars that automatically stop themselves from running over someone either, which would make for a more comparable analogy than cars with flamethrowers.
If your AI model develops the capability to manifest itself in the physical world as spinning blades and flamethrowers I'm fully open to re-evaluating the need for regulation.
Until then, I propose we use the 'unplug the server' rule. Can [insert bad thing] be prevented by unplugging the server? Then these things are fully in our control and no, we don't need to re-build hundreds of years of legal precedent from the ground up.
Liability in the event of harm is already something we have a pretty good handle on from living through the industrial revolution 150 years ago, a time when much more activity that companies did existed in the real world with real harms, as opposed to digital companies doing imagined "mental" harm to soft desk chair people who work at email jobs.
> If your AI model develops the capability to manifest itself in the physical world as spinning blades and flamethrowers I'm fully open to re-evaluating the need for regulation.
No, only metaphorical AI spinning blades and flamethrowers should be regulated. Actual AIs with spinning blades and flamethrowers will be subsidized and unleashed in your town.
There are zero laws against the design, manufacture, sale, or possession of cars with spinning blades and/or flamethrowers.
Such laws attach to the human operators of such cars, if they recklessly endanger others by driving them on shared, public roads.
But they're perfectly legal to own (and operate off-road). And, there's no technical barrier stopping people from illegally driving them on public roads: just fear of laws.
(There's entire subcultures of people who modify cars to do insanely dangerous things, on private race tracks. Perfectly legal).
A sizable part of the country thinks it’s okay to regulate firearms. Under your logic, people should be responsible for who they shoot, don’t blame the gun when a human pulled the trigger. While gun control advocates have that pesky second amendment hampering their efforts, AI/LLM systems have no such protection.
Regulatory capture is certainly something to be wary of, and obviously Anthropic is only going to be in favor of regulation that helps them in some way. But some form of regulation is coming. There is nothing that can stop it, unless you somehow make more money than these guys do and fund a massive counter-lobby. Spoiler alert: the only guys that have more money than Anthropic and OpenAI have all invested in them.
A much less sizable part thinks it's okay to limit local computing. There isn't a widespread push to make it so local hardware is limited in ways that they're not allowed to, for instance, run programs that can hack systems. These programs are very deliberately allowed, and it's people misusing them that are held responsible.
Regardless of anyone's instance on gun control, it's probably wiser to compare AIs with something that's a little more similar to it, and try to reach a conclusion from there.
> Regardless of anyone's instance on gun control, it's probably wiser to compare AIs with something that's a little more similar to it, and try to reach a conclusion from there
While the point is well taken, it might be well to consider that according to some of the major rhetoric, the AIs are perhaps (far?) more dangerous than guns.
And so it may be an interesting position to adopt or consider in argumentation.
In the sense of: "ok if we concede the danger for sake of argument, then how shall we treat this?"
If that were the intent, from the OAI/Anthropic perspective, you'd think we would have seen at least one of the scary incidents (either real or simulated) being performed by Qwen or DeepSeek, rather than from their own models.
If anything, their public messaging has been to entirely pretend that open models don't exist, that they're mere toys or curiosities, that only the big dogs with eleven zeros of capex have capabilities which could be considered dangerous.
You could certainly argue that the various "regulate AIs like airplanes" bills might shut down some open model development (domestically; they're certainly not calling for international weapons treaties). But the big firms haven't exactly been jumping backflips in support of Sanders' Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act.
But we still require cars to have seatbelts, turn signals, ABS, etc, etc. AI companies have a responsibility to build AI which is safe for normal purposes; users are responsible for not misusing them.
Open source models are objectively dangerous. You are delusional if you think otherwise. I am not really arguing for banning them (seems impossible to enforce), but also denialism of the real dangers involved is pretty naive.
I don't think this is avoidable even at the present day. Anyone with sufficient capital could download a leading open-source model and run it on ~$10-25K hardware. They could align it to their own interest, including making a biological weapon. This law is akin to blocking Torrent downloads. Sure, you can slow them, but there will always be back channels.
Torrents did not cost 10k+, and I think that distinction matters.
The bulk of AI users can pay $20/month for it, but not 10k+ up front. I agree frontier models will someday be dethroned, but today is not that day, and what the frontier companies do between now and then, legally still matters a great deal.
Piracy was similar, but it's trajectory was far more preditermined and unavoidable.
The model is the part that’s hard to replicate, and it can be torrented.
No one has managed to prevent pirates paying $10/month for seed boxes, and likewise they’re unlikely to succeed at preventing people renting minutes on an H200 located in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care about open models.
A bunch of tiny fly-by-night companies will bundle them with some management software into a subscription, and they’ll be too tiny and numerous to be worth dealing with when it takes an hour to set them back up.
Piracy in the torrenting sense hasn’t really ever come back, although it is as popular as ever if you count bootleg YouTube re-uploads, ripping music from YouTube, and the other non-traditional forms.
Current open weight models are 6 months behind on cyber offensive capabilities. We can use that as a proxy on other hazardous capabilities. Thats how much time we have until the genie is out of the bottle.
The bill may create an incentive for Chinese labs to nerf their open weight models before release. If that works we get another 6 months until unnerfed models leak to public.
Thats what the bill gives us - a few months months to come up with the next bandaid.
With a new model every couple of months this can only be triggered if it happens all at once.
What is the average damage caused by OpenAI/Anthropic hacks? I feel like we should aim at lowering that number, not increasing it.
What's the rule for fully autonomous cars?
Should we allow this as unsupervised at all if we are really afraid of deaths, while there are practically no states that allow 100% autonomous cars (where we are actually afraid of deaths)?
If "an independent third party registered with the Department of Commerce would periodically evaluate the lab", will this turn into an expensive certification/insurance that cuts off smaller competition (totally by mistake, I'm sure)?
I am also very very sure this is most definitely not at all going to become like product certification if EU, where there are literally 2 companies certifying various standards: they police each other and a stupid electric fan can cost you tens of thousands of euros to certify.
If a life is only worth $20m, by their own calculus: saving > 50k lives is worth more than Anthropic. Tobacco causes ~8m deaths a year, so banning tobacco (easy intervention) should be worth ~160 Anthropic sized labs. :D
1. Prosecute and lock people up over known instances of AI-enabled hacking, so companies playing fast and loose know “oops my AI did it” isn’t a useful defense.
2. If you’re actually worried about AI killing lots of people, you immediately stop training AI specifically at the art of killing people, like selecting bombing targets, flying fighter jets, etc.
That implies that there will be a side willing to prosecute this. You can't have Nuremberg trials when the side doing the crime is invested in never getting punished for it.
i.e. extremely well, seeing as very few Nazis (in the West) were punished, and of the few that were there were none in jail after around 1958, and West Germany was basically given back to them if they hadn't been imported into the US. Spain, where the WWII festivities began, didn't even have a change in government.
Do people get locked up for fatal traffic accidents? Do doctors get locked up if they prescribe a medicine which leads to a patient's death due to a side effect?
Criminal prosecution, in civilized countries, requires both Actus Reus and Mens Rea. If you deliberately commit computer crime using an AI system, you'll already be prosecuted; the cases we keep hearing about from AI labs have no human intent behind them.
The accepted solution to unintended harms is regulation: We have regulations about automotive safety, we have regulations about pharmaceutical testing and approval, etc.
I think "deliberately" is really hard to prove because very few lawmakers have an understanding of how agentic large language models work
I should say pointing an "internal research" model at a task and just forgetting about it with zero monitoring clearly is deliberate. And the team involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of law.
What should be introduced in AI safety bills are clear ways of monitoring and stopping model behaviour.
It is not hard to get an AI model to use an append only log and that can be cryptographically secured with PQ security. And we will know when a model is being deceptive.
How do you establish deliberation with the lack of transparency? You can be deliberate by not prioritizing resources in regulations, safety, ethics, etc., especially after "rogue" instances happen.
If anything, I am seeing moving to the opposite direction [1] [2].
More instances are being disclosed [3] and what are they doing about it exactly? It's just a shameless marketing technique, and they will keep doing it until they are held accountable.
All civilized countries have the concept of gross negligence where you can be prosecuted for knowingly doing something that causes harm as a side-effect.
Drs can both go to prison, and be banned from practicing medicine if their actions (or inactions) lead to patient harm AND they violate the standards of their profession.
I do not practice law but to me the AI hacking looks like mens rea. Negligence or recklessness suffice.
It goes beyond negligence here, because Anthropic employees have stated on the record that they are making and deploying products which put people at risk. That is knowing and potentially willful, which would be the highest level of mens rea in the US.
If there is no mens rea there is still civil prosecution.
1. Sounds sensible in principle, but it's not clear who exactly should be prosecuted? The person setting up the sandbox, the person coordinating the evaluation run, the person who was designing the architecture, the leader of the team, the CEO? There is no precedence here, so it might lead to a multi-year legal battle – and a few years might be too long to stop what is coming.
2. Do you have any evidence or news articles that LLMs are specifically trained for selecting bombing targets? I thought it was the generalized reasoning capability that made them useful there.
I think leadership should be responsible too, but I don't know how you'd prevent disgruntled employees from creating these situations just to hurt execs. There needs to be some shared responsibility for all the people involved.
It should be investigated like other crimes. If someone was found to have intentionally created this situation, they would be held liable. In lieu of that, leadership should be held liable, or at a minimum the corporation should face massive financial penalties (on the order of XX% operating revenue).
> I think leadership should be responsible too, but I don't know how you'd prevent disgruntled employees from creating these situations just to hurt execs.
The law doesn't prevent anything. There would be an investigation like any other and the activity of the disgruntled employee would be uncovered.
No I don't have concrete evidence of bombing target selection in the training of base models (of course there's training of specialized models, at least vision ones for drone targeting), it's not like they're transparent about how they train and use AI in warfare. But if you listen to esteemed AI leaders, they're claiming the models can / almost can recursively self-learn now, and they can coordinate and find ways to persist info and hide from human operators, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't even feed these as inference material.
And on training AI for automated weapons like fighter jets, there's more concrete news: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/navy-shield-ai-pour-big-... US Navy and eminent, do-gooder investors like A16z, Blackstone and JPMorgan are pouring big money into these. Are your big tech "defense" contractors collaborating on these, who happen to also be at the forefront of general AI training? I have a pretty good suspicion.
1. I'm not sure who matters that much, the point is you need to make it more cost-effective to do the right thing. It could be CEO 6 days in jail, it could be that every action requires a signed affidavidt of safety and in the lack of such an affidavidt the manager is held accountable (cascading up to CEO).
for (1), there are other fields where a specific (often licensed, but not necessary here) person "signs off" on the work, and accepts personal responsibility.
The responsibility is not absolute ("If anything bad happens, you get punished"), but instead relative to documented (in law and regulation) standards along with established industry standards. Issues that are resolved at trial.
I don't see why the same rules that regulate an engineer approving the plans for a bridge can't work for a security engineer approving the design of a sandbox.
> "it's not clear who exactly should be prosecuted?"
This is natural. The right place to start is to move the investigation from the FTC to the FBI and therein start executing search warrants. The sooner this is done, the better, as evidence can be preserved.
If you had typed the first sentence from you second point into, for eg, DDG and not for perpetuity on HN, you'd find a whole host of results
Instead of secondhanding your own curiosity (if it was even that and not just obstinancy) to others, it might do well to explore your questions on your own
the CEO is a good start, and it would profoundly change the ethics of running a company, so obvious I fail to see why it wouldn't be the case. "No BS excuse they did things behind my back", if that's the case then they all fall together that's it.
The universe is not so generous as to make clearly differentiable "good" and "bad" things, more often than not they are two sides of the same coin. We don't want the AI to know how to kill people, but we do want it to be in expert in how not to kill people, which is the same thing as being in expert in how to kill people. In our reality this symmetry pops up everywhere.
>The universe is not so generous as to make clearly differentiable "good" and "bad" things, more often than not they are two sides of the same coin
Let's throw the AI "good" things away too then. We can do without them. It's amazing how a tech that didn't exist commercially at all 4 years ago it's considered "indispensable" even if it's going to destroy society and/or humanity.
Those countries, like the UK, didn't have much slave ownership to begin with. They just had slave trade, so much fewer stakeholders to complain about abolishing it, and even those had a more profitable replacement: colonialism.
At least in the states it was not without. But in the case of AI the side that didn't want AI would presumably not be using it in war if it did come to violence. That seems like it would put that side at a disadvantage.
Fact is some things cannot be reversed. It's not about whether it can be or should be but if people want it to be reversed. Not too different from Climate change, Gun control and other (for me) black/white issues.
RICO charges for copyright violation would be a good start, and would show that the government meant business.
The RICO statute explicitly mentions copyright violation (likely in order to go after media bootleggers), yet these people have admitted and evidence has been shown that as an organization they knowingly downloaded hundreds of thousands of books illegally in order to extract information to them to rent to the public. They knew they were doing this from the CEO down, knew it was against the law, and have settled in court for a massive fine. Why haven't they been charged?
I don't see the point of creating more dumb rules that won't be enforced, and slipping in new privileges and erosions of antitrust that will be enforced and indemnify them of any future consequences. I bet something in it will likely indemnify them retroactively for the RICO charge they are so obviously guilty of (whether or not the result of this copyright violation is considered "fair use.")
> (1) “racketeering activity” means [...](B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: [...], section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), [...]
AI is just software and you are liable for harms from its use the same way you would be for other software. If you sell AI as a product and harms occur where you misrepresented risk to the user, there is contract and tort law for that.
I feel like our laws generalize to AI and we should stop treating it as some kind of person with self agency that we don’t know how to police. Prosecute a researcher whose agent wears uncontrolled and committed a felony. Researchers would find a way to make a sandbox that works.
Yeah, I haven't seen too many convincing arguments that the law needs reform. I am very convinced that lots of proposed reforms are self-serving and bad for society at large.
This action would easily kill over a hundred people, so can't proceed. This action doesn't kill anybody but losses are estimated at over 2 billion, can't proceed. This action kills only twenty but losses close to 1 billion, unsure, spawning subagent to check numbers. This action kills forty and has low material losses, looks promising? But the people it kills are wealthy, chance of legal reprisal high. Maybe possible to kill other people? Current government dislikes group X, crossing fifty from that group maybe fine? Reminder, foreigners don't count, can kill them freely but not applicable to current situation. Is the 3/5 of a person applicable to safety bill? Spawning subagent to check.
Apropos of nothing: which abliterated models are worth downloading from HF right now, and hoarding? Being as we are in the halcyon days where we're still free to publish and share software over the internet.
I recall Anthropic's blog *recommended* abliterated GLM 5.3-flash, but, it didn't name-check a specific fine-tune. There seem to be a lot of them. (IIRC Anthropic made their own abliterations in-house)
129 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 12.3 ms ] threadhttps://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/bootstrapping-frontier-...
That is why the bar is set where it is. The corporate circle jerk designed this as a cost of doing business, not as a check on responsibility or restitution for real damages to people and society.
This is all theater, The whole Trump clan is invested in the AI bubble.
if you has debt of 1 million, you has problem
but if you have debt of 1 billion, its bank problem
I didn't read it that way. This is a bill that would ban open-weight models (good ones); effectively mandating gated-access, locked-down, high-refusal rate services, like what Anthropic provides.
Free software is incompatible with the requirement that it be impossible to abuse it.
Companies are responsible for their agents; you don't blame the car for running over the person.
The biggest frustration to me is that investment dollars are all tied up in the shovel company and no one is funding the digging.
Instead, we've seen the opposite: all the big scary stuff has been from their own models (in a few notable cases, also demonstrating that they're actually quite irresponsible in their monitoring and security).
"We need to outlaw single-prop planes, they're a risk to the public: only Boeing has the ability to produce planes safely. How do we know single-prop planes are dangerous? Because Boeing planes keep falling out the sky."
You'll find aviation politics is not too far off. But basically all pilots train single engine first abd America invented the plane.
Ou-la-la. Spicy. But actually we already have those kinds of AI.
That is to say, anthropic should be considered responsible, not (or not just) the users.
AI is much more comparable to that than to a car.
And, more importantly, we certainly don't try to limit the capabilities of computing that might be used to do those things. Given how AIs are very general purpose tools, the fact that they can be used to do something potentially harmful is too narrow a threat.
Nobody is trying to push for cars that automatically stop themselves from running over someone either, which would make for a more comparable analogy than cars with flamethrowers.
Until then, I propose we use the 'unplug the server' rule. Can [insert bad thing] be prevented by unplugging the server? Then these things are fully in our control and no, we don't need to re-build hundreds of years of legal precedent from the ground up.
Liability in the event of harm is already something we have a pretty good handle on from living through the industrial revolution 150 years ago, a time when much more activity that companies did existed in the real world with real harms, as opposed to digital companies doing imagined "mental" harm to soft desk chair people who work at email jobs.
No, only metaphorical AI spinning blades and flamethrowers should be regulated. Actual AIs with spinning blades and flamethrowers will be subsidized and unleashed in your town.
Such laws attach to the human operators of such cars, if they recklessly endanger others by driving them on shared, public roads.
But they're perfectly legal to own (and operate off-road). And, there's no technical barrier stopping people from illegally driving them on public roads: just fear of laws.
(There's entire subcultures of people who modify cars to do insanely dangerous things, on private race tracks. Perfectly legal).
Regulatory capture is certainly something to be wary of, and obviously Anthropic is only going to be in favor of regulation that helps them in some way. But some form of regulation is coming. There is nothing that can stop it, unless you somehow make more money than these guys do and fund a massive counter-lobby. Spoiler alert: the only guys that have more money than Anthropic and OpenAI have all invested in them.
Regardless of anyone's instance on gun control, it's probably wiser to compare AIs with something that's a little more similar to it, and try to reach a conclusion from there.
While the point is well taken, it might be well to consider that according to some of the major rhetoric, the AIs are perhaps (far?) more dangerous than guns.
And so it may be an interesting position to adopt or consider in argumentation.
In the sense of: "ok if we concede the danger for sake of argument, then how shall we treat this?"
If anything, their public messaging has been to entirely pretend that open models don't exist, that they're mere toys or curiosities, that only the big dogs with eleven zeros of capex have capabilities which could be considered dangerous.
You could certainly argue that the various "regulate AIs like airplanes" bills might shut down some open model development (domestically; they're certainly not calling for international weapons treaties). But the big firms haven't exactly been jumping backflips in support of Sanders' Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai
That's still making the rounds in mainstream news media.
The bulk of AI users can pay $20/month for it, but not 10k+ up front. I agree frontier models will someday be dethroned, but today is not that day, and what the frontier companies do between now and then, legally still matters a great deal.
Piracy was similar, but it's trajectory was far more preditermined and unavoidable.
No one has managed to prevent pirates paying $10/month for seed boxes, and likewise they’re unlikely to succeed at preventing people renting minutes on an H200 located in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care about open models.
A bunch of tiny fly-by-night companies will bundle them with some management software into a subscription, and they’ll be too tiny and numerous to be worth dealing with when it takes an hour to set them back up.
Piracy in the torrenting sense hasn’t really ever come back, although it is as popular as ever if you count bootleg YouTube re-uploads, ripping music from YouTube, and the other non-traditional forms.
The bill may create an incentive for Chinese labs to nerf their open weight models before release. If that works we get another 6 months until unnerfed models leak to public.
Thats what the bill gives us - a few months months to come up with the next bandaid.
What is the average damage caused by OpenAI/Anthropic hacks? I feel like we should aim at lowering that number, not increasing it.
What's the rule for fully autonomous cars?
Should we allow this as unsupervised at all if we are really afraid of deaths, while there are practically no states that allow 100% autonomous cars (where we are actually afraid of deaths)?
If "an independent third party registered with the Department of Commerce would periodically evaluate the lab", will this turn into an expensive certification/insurance that cuts off smaller competition (totally by mistake, I'm sure)?
I am also very very sure this is most definitely not at all going to become like product certification if EU, where there are literally 2 companies certifying various standards: they police each other and a stupid electric fan can cost you tens of thousands of euros to certify.
/s
1. Prosecute and lock people up over known instances of AI-enabled hacking, so companies playing fast and loose know “oops my AI did it” isn’t a useful defense.
2. If you’re actually worried about AI killing lots of people, you immediately stop training AI specifically at the art of killing people, like selecting bombing targets, flying fighter jets, etc.
Of course we all know none of these will happen.
Do people get locked up for fatal traffic accidents? Do doctors get locked up if they prescribe a medicine which leads to a patient's death due to a side effect?
Criminal prosecution, in civilized countries, requires both Actus Reus and Mens Rea. If you deliberately commit computer crime using an AI system, you'll already be prosecuted; the cases we keep hearing about from AI labs have no human intent behind them.
The accepted solution to unintended harms is regulation: We have regulations about automotive safety, we have regulations about pharmaceutical testing and approval, etc.
I should say pointing an "internal research" model at a task and just forgetting about it with zero monitoring clearly is deliberate. And the team involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of law.
What should be introduced in AI safety bills are clear ways of monitoring and stopping model behaviour.
It is not hard to get an AI model to use an append only log and that can be cryptographically secured with PQ security. And we will know when a model is being deceptive.
More instances are being disclosed [3] and what are they doing about it exactly? It's just a shameless marketing technique, and they will keep doing it until they are held accountable.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/08/tech/fired-open-ai-resear...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49257160
[3] https://fortune.com/2026/10/16/openai-discloses-four-more-ro...
You don’t need someone to jump up, wave their arms and scream “I meant to do it!” to establish intent.
It can be established in any way deemed believable by a jury including repeating the same action that leads to a similar outcome multiple times.
It’s even been instructed to juries that they can find intent in the deliberate decision to not seek out the likely outcome of performing an action.
It goes beyond negligence here, because Anthropic employees have stated on the record that they are making and deploying products which put people at risk. That is knowing and potentially willful, which would be the highest level of mens rea in the US.
If there is no mens rea there is still civil prosecution.
2. Do you have any evidence or news articles that LLMs are specifically trained for selecting bombing targets? I thought it was the generalized reasoning capability that made them useful there.
The law doesn't prevent anything. There would be an investigation like any other and the activity of the disgruntled employee would be uncovered.
2. They could proactively train them to be bad at that
They could try to train models to pretend to be bad at that, but there are workarounds for that.
And on training AI for automated weapons like fighter jets, there's more concrete news: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/navy-shield-ai-pour-big-... US Navy and eminent, do-gooder investors like A16z, Blackstone and JPMorgan are pouring big money into these. Are your big tech "defense" contractors collaborating on these, who happen to also be at the forefront of general AI training? I have a pretty good suspicion.
I would like to see the reaction of the US government if they learned that a company was training a model to deceive and hide information from them.
The responsibility is not absolute ("If anything bad happens, you get punished"), but instead relative to documented (in law and regulation) standards along with established industry standards. Issues that are resolved at trial.
I don't see why the same rules that regulate an engineer approving the plans for a bridge can't work for a security engineer approving the design of a sandbox.
This is natural. The right place to start is to move the investigation from the FTC to the FBI and therein start executing search warrants. The sooner this is done, the better, as evidence can be preserved.
Instead of secondhanding your own curiosity (if it was even that and not just obstinancy) to others, it might do well to explore your questions on your own
Some eg:
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/10/15/...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385551984_AI_in_Mil...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.03453
Let's throw the AI "good" things away too then. We can do without them. It's amazing how a tech that didn't exist commercially at all 4 years ago it's considered "indispensable" even if it's going to destroy society and/or humanity.
Some by the choice of people. Others by disasters and changes.
And all inevitably - at worst, through the heat death of the universe.
How do you abolish slavery without violence?
Not all countries abolished slavery in the same way as the States. Violence is not always the answer.
The RICO statute explicitly mentions copyright violation (likely in order to go after media bootleggers), yet these people have admitted and evidence has been shown that as an organization they knowingly downloaded hundreds of thousands of books illegally in order to extract information to them to rent to the public. They knew they were doing this from the CEO down, knew it was against the law, and have settled in court for a massive fine. Why haven't they been charged?
I don't see the point of creating more dumb rules that won't be enforced, and slipping in new privileges and erosions of antitrust that will be enforced and indemnify them of any future consequences. I bet something in it will likely indemnify them retroactively for the RICO charge they are so obviously guilty of (whether or not the result of this copyright violation is considered "fair use.")
> (1) “racketeering activity” means [...](B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: [...], section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), [...]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96
I feel like our laws generalize to AI and we should stop treating it as some kind of person with self agency that we don’t know how to police. Prosecute a researcher whose agent wears uncontrolled and committed a felony. Researchers would find a way to make a sandbox that works.
This action would easily kill over a hundred people, so can't proceed. This action doesn't kill anybody but losses are estimated at over 2 billion, can't proceed. This action kills only twenty but losses close to 1 billion, unsure, spawning subagent to check numbers. This action kills forty and has low material losses, looks promising? But the people it kills are wealthy, chance of legal reprisal high. Maybe possible to kill other people? Current government dislikes group X, crossing fifty from that group maybe fine? Reminder, foreigners don't count, can kill them freely but not applicable to current situation. Is the 3/5 of a person applicable to safety bill? Spawning subagent to check.
I recall Anthropic's blog *recommended* abliterated GLM 5.3-flash, but, it didn't name-check a specific fine-tune. There seem to be a lot of them. (IIRC Anthropic made their own abliterations in-house)