This is basically a blanket decriminalization of all computer intrusions, since virtually all hacking boils down to access to a computer in an "unexpected" way.
Again, that simply isn't how the law works. I see you all around this threat repeatedly trying to reason about half a criminal charge: the actus reus used to gain access to computer system. It makes no sense to think of this particular crime that way; you need the other half of the charge, mens rea, the knowing intent to do something with a computer that you aren't authorized to do.
The problem is that, at least for the moment, AI doesn't have a discernable (or even arguably cognizable) mens rea.
So how do we craft laws for a world where very nearly all the network traffic consists of machines talking to each other, learning, and talking again?
You keep pointing me to "how the law works," but I've said in four different messages now that I understand that - I'm pointing out that the law, as written, doesn't work.
I don't think there is a place for government as we know it - much less the completely shamed criminal justice system - on the internet. These institutions can go peacefully and with dignity or they can be stubborn and destructive, to the detriment of humans everywhere.
The more people try to justify their behavior and normalize their insanity, the more likely the latter scenario becomes.
Again, that simply isn't how the law works. I see you all around this threat repeatedly trying to reason about half a criminal charge: the actus reus used to gain access to computer system. It makes no sense to think of this particular crime that way; you need the other half of the charge, mens rea, the knowing intent to do something with a computer that you aren't authorized to do.