No, it's not. Read better.

I bet that the system showed police the timestamp of the image and they ignored it. This is the same dysfunctional state where police can't identify a burglar who used a Waymo robotaxi as a getaway car.

Don't be a dick. You claimed something that wasn't in TDS or TFA. It's not my burden to disprove your hallucination.

Did the system report that, or did it report the most recent data it had but police didn't look at the timestamp?

People don't pay capital depreciation. It's a bookkeeping technique to reflect that durable capital assets don't last forever. People pay for the assets up front. Capital depreciation decreases the book (=accounting fiction) value of the asset and spreads the tax deduction for the purchase expense over the same time.

I have known that Bitcoin was a worthless, bubble-driven fad for 17 years. I look forward to being proven right this time.

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.

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.