Likely, but I am not sure. There were a few well-publicized cases where someone used an AI agent to hack a system. In many cases the exact details were missing. Sometimes it was the creator of the agent. At other times it was an independent lab. In one case it was someone who was tinkering and hacked the appointment system at a gym or something like that to get a better slot.

That's my point. The articles often gloss over or omit who was using the agent and focus on the fact that it was the agent that did the hacking. It's worded to absolve whoever operates the agent, and that is where responsibility ultimately lies.

I think you and I agree. If it was OpenAI employees who did the hacking using their own agent, then the analogy would be like you describe. I wish the article made that clear.

So if I set up a company and accidentally hack random organizations that's OK? But if I do it as an individual user that's not? If they directed anyone or anything to "hack" and that was the outcome that they could not control within the confines of their sandbox then they are responsible for all damages and computer crimes.

I mean, why is OpenAI allowed to continue running public infrastructure? Maybe someone should sue their upstream providers for aiding and abetting felons with massive Internet interconnects.

Sure it does. And if the circumstances indicate that OpenAI committed a crime, they should be held accountable. End of story.

In a large portion of the civilised world, there’s strict gun controls, creating a high level of safe guards preventing miss-use.

Also seems as this is an billion dollar organisation, the prime minister had “frank” words while an individual faces jail time for using open AI for web scraping https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-10/christopher-duff-to-s...