I can't tell what point you think you're making with your first sentence. It has booting to do with this.

You could check the law if you want to know how it define "protected"! There are three prongs, connected by "or"; the broadest one says a "protected computer" is any "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States". If someone orders from Amazon, streams from Netflix or uses a cloud-based LLM from the computer, it's protected under CFAA. As Wikipedia puts it:

I answered your question before you asked it. You didn't like the answer so you arbitrarily claimed you were talking about morality rather than laws. Do you think setting booby traps is moral? If so, that's a reflection that you are not just a dipshit but a sociopath as well.

To be clear, you are a dipshit who won't answer basic questions to defend your awful analogy. If I warn you that being a dipshit might lead to getting shot, does that excuse anyone who actually shoots you?

The law in question here makes it a crime when someone "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer". Do you think that's satisfied by your sign hypothetical? I think you've left out some of the elements related to intent, and made the "causes the transmission" element much less clear. That's why I did not say anything like what you suggest.

I am reminded of some source code for a company-specific program that I saw in the late 1990s. I don't remember why I was perusing it, as I was in IT and absolutely not a developer. But I remember being tickled at one of the comments before a block of code. It was something like, "I have no idea why or how the following code works. But every time someone tries to change it, everything breaks, so please don't touch it."

Booby traps are still illegal and immoral even if you have "keep out - no trespassing" signs all over your property, and in this case it wasn't even the malicious abuser's own property.

Intentionally destroying somebody's data is still a crime if they have backups. The intent is the difference between this and equipment failure.

Do you think that women should go around in burqas and only have themselves to blame if they get raped when not wearing a burqa?

In this case, that's the person who snuck malicious instructions into the prompt, intending for it to destroy data.

This isn't rocket science. There are projects that do the same kind of thing conscientiously -- they have an AGENTS.md or a section in their README that basically tells an AI agent not to write code or create a bug report or whatever. Bad users can work around that, but those bad users are less harmful than the kind of person who prompt-injects malware.

The LLM companies are not causing the transmission of the command to delete things. If anyone, it's the jqwik developer who made test code generate the instruction at runtime in a hidden form.

The intent to damage is crystal clear here, and the attempt to hide the command makes it easy to assign responsibility for the knowing transmission of the command.

LLMs are unpredictable, but that's a very different threat than malicious instructions hidden by an attacker. The person who hid the malicious instructions is analogous to the hypothetical person who trained a dangerous dog and released it in a kindergarten.

Computers don't have agency; people do. The person who tells a computer to delete data is the one responsible for the deletion. This isn't rocket science.

That's not the reason that both bombs were dropped. They were dropped because the military saw them as just another tool in the toolbox, just like the bombs dropped on all the other cities that continued to be dropped on other cities until the surrender. Truman ended the military's control of atomic bombs after Nagasaki, when the USAAF was preparing to use a third bomb, establishing civilian control of atomic weapons. Firebombing continued, though, right up to Kumagaya, Akita, and Osaka getting hit in the 24 hours prior to Hirohito taking to the airwaves.

The agreement expired in 2030. It did not authorize Iran to pursue nuclear weapons at that time. There's a difference.

The agreement was the best available at the time. Diplomacy sometimes requires taking a temporary win, and it usually means that neither side gets everything they want. The hope was that Iran would find that they would not want or need to develop nuclear weapons. If they did go down that path, there were penalties for doing so. Future negotiations were planned to modify or extend the agreement as it got closer to the expiration date.

That's how such agreements work. Every arms treaty signed between the US and USSR had an expiration date. The expiration date was not an agreement that at the end, both sides would immediately rearm. They were meant to establish a new normal and a baseline for future negotiations, and that's what happened. Over time, the arsenals were negotiated down from tens of thousands per side to a few thousand per side, with only a fraction of them deployed or even deployable. The last one expired a few months ago, but neither side is racing to add to their deployed warhead count.

There is no way to outright prevent Iran from developing a nuclear warhead without occupying the country and removing its entire current government. That is hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and an even worse look for the US than it has right now. Negotiating a deal like the JCPOA is the best option available. But every time Trump starts to talk about a deal and details start to leak out, they look a lot worse than the JCPOA. Trump is incompetent, he started a war that even Republicans are turning against, and he's arguably left Iran in a better place than it was before. Iran now knows that they can cut off the Strait of Hormuz, and no one can or will do anything about it. Worse, Trump has stated that he would be OK with Iran charging transit fees. If that starts, everyone else who controls a waterway that is otherwise internationally accessible is going to charge them, too. Indonesia and Malaysia would be the top two who could affect global trade, and while both have said that they would not, it's hard to say what future governments would do if they came under budget stress and had a precedent to point to.

My theory is that their employment of brain cells decreased by 20%.

Unemployment statistics count people before, while and after they collect unemployment benefits. The thing you called a trick is only your imagination.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_ht...