Comment by getoj

I’m a lawyer (but not your lawyer, not this kind of lawyer and not in your jurisdiction). Based on what I can recall from law school:

> Can an AI model intend harm?

No. The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages.

> Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm?

Absolutely. This is why we have the concept of recklessness. If you shoot a gun into a crowd without regard for whether it hits anyone, you’re getting charged with some crime whether it hits someone or not.

There is also a major difference in the common law between criminal liability and tort liability. Criminal liability generally requires a combination of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (actually committing the crime). Liability for a tort, which is where you harm someone in a way that falls short of being a crime, does not require mens rea. The OG tort is negligence, where you harm somebody by forgetting to do, or deciding not to do, something you ought to have done to protect that person from harm.

Even if AI companies somehow escape criminal liability for their cyber-shenanigans, any court in a civilised country would be happy to find them liable in tort for damage to computer systems.

As you can probably tell, I think the common law is already more than equipped to deal with AI technology based on well-established principles.