>> They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them > He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technica

>> They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them > He is so close to the solution but spends the entire article discussing technical solutions where a political, social and legal solution would be much more effective. There are exceptions in laws for crimes committed by entities depending on cognitive capabilities. No sane, humanistic legal system sentences children and mentally disabled and mentally ill people to stringent punishments of the same degree as functioning adults, and certainly do not punish their caregivers for their wards' actions. There are of course exceptions to that as well, depending on the degree of negligence involved. And then there's the whole corporate entity system intended to shield individuals from consequences, in the pursuit of a social good. How does one account for all that when considering an evolving artificial intelligence landscape. There is no question that ai in some form is a social good; anyone claiming otherwise is dissembling, to others or themselves. Regardless, society is not ready for this tech, just as it was not ready for the consequences of prior tech such as corporations, gunpowder, mass manufacturing, railroads, electricity, automobiles, flight, wmd, computers, internet, social media, crypto. Many of these required new ways of thinking and considering consequences when things went sideways, and what was needed wasn't clear until the ramifications & consequences became deadly clear. See you on the other side. Maybe.