yeah this problem isn't real and it would be good if wired didn't pretend it's real probably if a person can be framed for a computer crime (established) and held responsible for an accidental computer crime (established) then the relevant ambiguity is only whomst, and it's minimal (prompter)
Tim MarchmanIf I go on a hacking spree, it’s clearly covered under a variety of civil and criminal laws. If a robot does due to the negligence and incompetence of a person or company? That’s a little more complicated (for now), @lhn.bsky.social reports: