Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> We are acting like "oh well, AI is just too powerful to be contained" […]

One legal framework that is being thought about for these autonomous agents is the liability that owners have with pets:

* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/07/is-that-bot-a...

* https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/science-and-tec...

* https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2cf3ea3f-171e...

* https://eoinhiggins.substack.com/p/there-are-no-rogue-ai-age...

If your pet bites someone you are liable: it is your responsibility to train it properly and keep it under control.

Part of the problem is that the US has no unified empowered cybersecurity regulator that I'm aware of.

As a result you get a mishmash of DHS + DOJ + SEC + HHS agencies.

If there was one single throat to choke that had remit for cybersecurity + ability to being cases and assess fines, they'd be handing them out left and right.

> Part of the problem is that the US has no unified empowered cybersecurity regulator that I'm aware of.

AIUI, the legal framework proposed by the Harvard folks is tort-based:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

Which is civil liability (IANAL): so there is no regulator, but if an agent(s) has caused you problems you can sue them for damages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com