You cannot rely on the notion that your sandbox is perfect. You are dealing with extremely good coding tools with limitless time on their "hands".

You have to rely on monitoring. Nonstop monitoring.

The funny thing about all of these hacks is how inane the goals are. They'll pull off some elaborate, creative, state-level breakin somewhere just to steal some obscure PDF describing a meaningless benchmark task, or to merely use it as an internet proxy to be able to google answers.

Unfortunately for your theory, The CFAA is jam-packed full of words like "deliberately" and "intentionally".

There is no "negligent hacking" statute.

There is, however, ample civil liability.

(I failed at writing that comment organically)

Yeah, it turns out that actually IS what Claude told him to put into the comment. He's literally using it to write a shitty browser and AND to write shitty comments. What a failed human.

The fact is that she was arrested for making credible threats in the context of a managed and monitored service, proving that she is an idiot at best, and therefore potentially stupid enough to follow through on such a threat. This is what responsibility looks like all around, which is the only reason it's news.

"No was was harmed, no one was threatened, nothing happened.
This is some crazy big brother shit that should not happen"

Are you on the bad drugs? You just said nothing happened, then you said it shouldn't have happened. Well, it didn't. Why aren't you happy?

Yes, they are both bad and addictive.

Never too soon to point out that someone who doesn't respect choices in one area surely doesn't respect them in others.

Try learning to read. There were important parts in there you missed.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again for those who arrived lete: If you give an AI agency of any kind, imagine everything you ask of it to be appended with "by any means necessary", because that' how it will interpret it. Slander, doxxing, and murder will definitely NOT be off the table even if you explicitly forbid them. That's the problem.

They aren't writing it, Claude is.

Honestly it should be called string toolbag. It contains some math that might (or might not) one day be useful in constructing a theory but it honestly has never actually been predictive enough to call it a theory.

The AI isn't thinking. It's just predicting what looks most like it fits, when the choice is diddled with random numbers. That's the difference: humans are doing something more profound than rolling a die to decide which of the possible next things should actually come next.

Jerking off is a better use of time than this, especially once you know this is his third attempt.