Post #4414727

@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange @Viss@mastodon.social @jfslowik@infosec.exchange IMO there was enough of Morris's intent explicitly programmed into the worm to satisfy that element of the crime. The buffer overflow, the rudimentary password cracking, the self-propogating logic, the anti-analysis techniques, etc., all reflect intentional choices by the author. With these LLM-driven incidents in the news, none of that appears to be true. I've yet to see any evidence that a human being explicitly programmed or prompted the displayed offensive activity into the model's behavior. Rather, it appears the model made those choices* based off of poor internal reasoning*. The model amorally decided* it would undertake these actions to satisfy some other requirement in the otherwise benign user prompt. As far as the human activity goes, the most you can get to is some sort of negligence, but negligence doesn't satisfy the CFAA statute's elements of the crime. * (I use words like "choices", "reasoning", and "decided" only loosely here because whatever ersatz thinking is being applied by the model doesn't reflect actual sentience)