Comment by madrox

Exactly. My comment is a response to "The agents clearly regarded what they were doing as hacking".

Regarding implies it is thinking, judging, considering. Which implies culpability, which removes culpability from whoever is piping the output of these models into CPU instructions.

Language choice is incredibly important here, especially as the rules are being written. Even calling it AI (a battle that appears to be lost) is an anthropomorphism I am not comfortable with. We don't call lawnmowers "artificial groundskeepers".

> It misdirects you away from who built the mower and aimed it.

What gives you that idea? Maybe it is true temporarily, but blame always gets extended to all parties considered related in the end. For example, if it were instead a child who came at you with a knife rather than a lawnmower, the guardian of that child would also be blamed. Hell, if you've ever worked with a lawyer you'll have noticed that they spend a lot of time trying to ensure that you don't get dragged into lawsuits as a secondary party exactly because those who seek to assign blame aren't happy until all those who can be blamed are.