I don’t have twitter so I can’t view the thread, but bankruptcy of a company for facilitating $500m of damage being caused (the monetary threshold of the bill) doesn’t seem very mild?
Bankruptcy is an upper bound, not a lower bound. If you could pay up enough in damages and still stay solvent, you probably do. The (alleged/proposed) Anthropic changes isn’t “if you do at least 500M in damages, you’ll go bankrupt.” It’s more like “If you do at least $X in damages, the worst that can happen to you is that your company[1] will go bankrupt.”
(To be clear, not a lawyer/legislator, did not read the letter very carefully, etc)
I don’t have twitter so I can’t view the thread, but bankruptcy of a company for facilitating $500m of damage being caused (the monetary threshold of the bill) doesn’t seem very mild?
Bankruptcy is an upper bound, not a lower bound. If you could pay up enough in damages and still stay solvent, you probably do. The (alleged/proposed) Anthropic changes isn’t “if you do at least 500M in damages, you’ll go bankrupt.” It’s more like “If you do at least $X in damages, the worst that can happen to you is that your company[1] will go bankrupt.”
(To be clear, not a lawyer/legislator, did not read the letter very carefully, etc)
If I understand correctly, they are also pushing for limited liability, so directors/executives are not responsible either.