I'm in the outraged crowd and there should be pretty serious consequences, but it is important in the interest of justice to differentiate between fraud, negligence, and gross incompetence.

Whilst I agree in principle that deliberate disruption of other people's websites/serivces should be more harshly punished, I don't think it's particularly practical. There's so many ways that modern companies can obfuscate the reasoning behind what they do, so I've come to the conclusion that if they're causing harm to someone else, then they should be punished/made to pay no matter their excuse.

If companies hide behind negligence/incompetence, then we need to make it costly for them to be negligent/incompetent.

Discerning intent is a waste of time and resources in cases like this.

Looks like AI is becoming a perfect excuse to do whatever you like.

It's like having a dangerous dog that usually doesn't bite, but you really cannot know if it will change its mind one day. Do you just let such dog walk the streets without owner supervision?

> It's like having a dangerous dog that usually doesn't bite, but you really cannot know if it will change its mind one day.

In other words, a pit bull.

Which is why anyone deploying AI solutions should be held accountable for whatever the AI does, as if they had done it personally and intentionally.

It’s irresponsible to deploy AI if you don’t know what it will do, especially when there are actual stakes.

Maybe we’ll have less AI bullshit then.

I.e. as a crime rather than just a civic tort? I agree.

As general rule, I find that sort of thing to be an over-reaction, but submitting a complaint for phishing instead of a plain old DMCA takedown does warrant it.

It does but there's no actual way to get legal recourse for false DMCA notices or anything similar. The legal system is stacked for the abusers to have their way and the victims to have no recourse, regardless of how egregious the abuse is.

>Filing false reports like this should count as fraud.

It does, but they never mess with anyone with big enough pockets to get sued for it.

Isn't it already classed as perjury?

No, the perjury aspect of a DMCA takedown (which isn't even applicable here as that's not what they did) is if you don't actually represent the person that you claim to be filing a takedown on behalf of.