I think a lot of us who aren’t lawyers equate “breaking the law” with “criminal behavior”, which implies a crime. But if course lawyers gonna lawyer so that hair has been split very finely & repeatedly over time. Feels like the difference between the vernacular and the letter of the law to me?

I have often heard, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" so I always imagined that if you broke the law, you committed a crime, but I suppose it makes sense, if you break the law and you have no idea and no intent, you have broken the law, not committed a crime, but could be held liable for any harm arising from that. In the case where it's not clear the court must then decide.

So I suppose we need to find out who is responsible for actions taken by AI. The model creator? The harness creator? The executor? What if a non technical person downloads an AI model and a harness, runs it locally and the AI goes out and breaks the law? I suppose it could vary, like a car. A car manufacturer makes a fault car and the brake fails and kills someone, they are liable. The car is okay and the driver is not paying attention and kills someone, the driver is.