Agents don't cause attacks. People running agents do.

The people who ran the agents were negligent at best but I have an alternate theory.

If they knew the technology could go sideways and hack things then they effectively executed those hacks intentionally.

If not they are only negligently ignorant which is not generally a crime in this context.

They like it when they are the ones with exclusive access because they feel special.

They don't like it otherwise but rapidly forget they paid to be fucked over.

Go back further and you'll see he wasn't like that until Obama got elected.

Racism broke his brain.

Also the entire GTA series is filled with games that people tend to replay so it's an relevant objection in this story

Validate my claim? Learn to internet, noob.

They've told us it's going to require a connection.

That is pretty fucking weird, what better way to convince PC users to cancel your service?

$5900 for 128GB

Windows-only Aarch64 stuff. Nova Lake is almost here anyhow. If I spend that much, I want more than a overheating windows laptop.

I thought you could stream the Xbox service to PC. Did I imagine that or ate they just not going to allow PC users to stream this title?

In fact it is true.

I know your cowardly asses modded me down. You can't fight anyone who can fight back, only children who can't stop you from raping them.

"You are a rather solipsistic fellow aren't you? You never got on or off a bus in the dark so no one does."

Literally the opposite of what I said. Are you having Gemini write your comments?

It's no surprise that most Slashdotters have lost their sense of wonder, as they've forgotten what it was like to be children.

Despite DST existing, I clearly remember waiting for the bus in the dark for part of the year.

DST doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and it kills people. It's weird to celebrate that.

And if a rogue AI agent actually *causes* one of those more damaging attacks, what then? "To err is human, but to really fsck things up takes a computer" and all that?

What seems to be missing here isn't just any clarity in legislation about liability for AI agents, especially labs running frontier models who seem to get free legal passes that would absolutely not be afforded to regular plebs who - potentially entirely by accident - cause an agent to hack someone else, but any serious discussion about putting those legal frameworks in place is also lacking. Seriously, WTF is up with that? How many incidents that are clearly in breach of existing computer misuse legislation do we need to get some action here, either under existing laws (including, potentially, civil law) or to start working on tweaks to existing laws to provide some specific clarity relating who is liable for any misuse of AI agents?

I get the AI labs almost certainly have a tacit "don't sue us, and we won't sue you" agreement in place for things like this to try and avoid regulation they definitely do not want because their actions are quite obviously not aligned with the regulation they are claiming they want put into place. Third parties like South Korean banks are under no such terms however, and given they are in the financial sector (or health sector in another recent example) probably have legal obligations of their own as well, so again - why are we not even hearing of any talk of legal action?

I guarantee you that they gave themselves the right to review your input for any purpose and inform law enforcement if they feel the need. I haven't read the agreement, but I'd still bet money.