@dangoodin@infosec.exchange @wdormann@infosec.exchange @drs1969@mstdn.social @glyph@mastodon.social Unpopular opinion: Dan is right about all of his points, and so is the article he linked. And he's right that y'all are unfairly shooting the messenger. Most crimes require establishing intent. GenAI models might have impulses that drive them based on their training and prompts, but it seems unlikely to me that one could reasonably call that intent. They might mimic humans in some ways, but that mimicry and activity probably isn't sufficient to meet the standards established in criminal law. Maybe there is some civil liability, but even that has been narrowed in recent years. IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that costs of internal investigations are not recoverable under Van Buren v. United States. This is a shit show.