this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
130 points (87.8% liked)

Technology

87063 readers
4493 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
130
AI assistant hacks gym website in first known Australian autonomous cyber attack: Andrew asked his personal assistant to book him a spot in one of his gym's coveted morning classes. (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 days ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ignirtoq@feddit.online 8 points 1 day ago

prompted questions about who bears responsibility for an AI agent that goes rogue.

That's not a trivial question, but courts have had the concept of distributed weighted responsibility for decades. Does your company provide users with access to an AI agent you know aggressively finds illegal/unethical ways of completing prompts? Mostly the provider's fault with small fault of the user submitting the prompt. Safer AI with a user who has crafted the prompt specifically to attempt to get the AI to break into a system? Higher weight on the fault of the user, smaller weight on the provider.