He didn't mean to hit anyone! All he meant to do was to drive to pilates! But he didn't know how to handle his tool, and so either he get brought up on manslaughter changes or, if he can prove it, the carmaker is at fault.
How is this any different? Why should that guy using OpenClaw not get charged for the hack that he accidentally did?
A closer analogy would be if you turned on your blinker and your car autonomously decided to shoot the card in your blind spot with a rocket.
The name "AI Assistant" not only does not indicate that it will spontaneously break the law to break into other computer systems, it also carries some implied liability. It claims to replace a real life assistant, who in fact would be liable for breaking the law in carrying out their tasks (unless it could be argued that you implied they should break the law when giving them the task).
you can say that asking an agent to “get you a spot in a class”, does not classify as deliberately committing a crime. a user cannot know that the agent will resort to hacking as opposed to refreshing the reservation page at some rate in case spots open up
I never said that it did. Manslaughter is not deliberate.
Somebody hacked into that pilates studio, and it wasn't an inanimate object, because that is just silly. So was it the user, or was it the providers of OpenClaw? Which human, in your opinion, is the hacker?
Both OpenClaw and its users have the same access as you or I to decades of panicking blogposts about what these tools will be capable of. They have no excuse for not understanding what they're inflicting on innocent bystanders. Sure, the "user cannot know" that this time will be a disaster, but they also cannot know that it won't.
I don't agree with this premise.
If a bit flip creates a worm, is God hacking the affected computers? Why can't an inanimate object hack a computer?