7 ms·
You would have to prove they acted intentionally, though. You can't just argue in court, "Well, we don't know how they prompted, so we will assume the worst" I
by cortesoft 9d ago
You would have to prove they acted intentionally, though. You can't just argue in court, "Well, we don't know how they prompted, so we will assume the worst"
If the prosecution is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person gave a prompt that was intended to commit a crime, then of course we can prosecute them for that. The AI is just a tool to commit fraud at that point, and is no different than a person who uses photoshop to alter a check to commit fraud.
- elonfboy 9d agoBut, your honor, I didn’t know it was a crime! My bad!
- xboxnolifes 9d agoThat's not what they are saying. They are trying to explain to you and others the concept of criminal negligence.
- cortesoft 9d agoIt has nothing to do with whether you know something is a crime or not. Many crimes require intention, such as murder and fraud, so you have to prove that to convict someone of that crime. That doesn’t mean you can get away with anything as long as you don’t intend to commit a crime; there are many other crimes that don’t require intention at all, like involuntary manslaughter or gross negligence. My point is that if you want to charge someone with a crime that requires intention, you have to prove that intention.
- sdeframond 9d agoPragmatically, if too many people use LLMs recklessly, then we ought to regulate them. Of course, it'd be better to not regulate, keep LLMs users reponsible and publicize this reponsibility in order to mitigate damage. But if this is not enough then we will have to move the needle somehow. Similarly to guns, drugs and so on.