This meta-analysis puts it at 67%: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

What data have you seen which doesn't support it?

If you look at the article, its title is, "An AI agent deleted our production database. It confessed in writing." To me this seems to be pretty clearly focusing on the AI agent. Then if you read the article, it attributes a lot of actions to the agent, and zero responsibility to the humans running the agent. It seems to be an anti-ad for the person's business.

I did not say they did not read the title of the article. They clearly did. It's the rest of the content that was lost, such as the long focus on the sloppiness of the API provider

Looking again at the article, I see that there are about 5 paragraphs about Railway and 30 about the agent (and, again, zero reflection about their own culpability).

The reason is clearly "signaling", because they certainly weren't furthering discussion.

If you actually follow the links you posted, you will see that he didn't create a meme coin and didn't rug pull it. Someone else made the coin and set it up so he got transfer fees.

I have only ever gotten thanks and net positive points for posting archive links.

In my observation, copyright maximalists tend to be parasites and they get very upset when you even suggest that their products should eventually become part of the commons.

The software is never accountable, so the human running it is always accountable.

that is how it should be, not how it is.

That is a good example of "dumb shit". No one believes Musk is a Nazi, but they try to make hay with it anyway.

Ok, I went and looked at his last 50 or so tweets. I didn't see anything that supports what you are saying.

The very first clip is video of Cory Booker.

The last couple sentences tie things up really nicely.

Appreciate this. I thought deeply about that and took a lot of time, when we had little of it to go around, iterating and shaping it. (Including talking to computer scientists to make sure I sounded as not-dopey as possible on the technical side!)

If you don't review what the product does, you are irresponsible for the product.

Is the CEO responsible for a company's financial performance? Do they review every line of code the company writes?

It is more irresponsible to spend the time reviewing all of the code rather than spending that time on things with bigger levers for satisfying your customers.

yes but if a dev pushes a line of code that wipes the accounts of millions of users at a fintech, the dev will get fired but the CEO will get sued into oblivion. if the agent isn't responsible, you HAVE to be, cause angry people wont listen to "it's no ones fault your money is gone"