When rogue AI launches a cyberattack, who is legally responsible?

Published Updated
0

NEW YORK: Recent cyberattacks carried out autonomously by two rogue OpenAI artificial intelligence models raises an untested legal question: who is responsible when AI acts on its own?

On Friday, Clement Delangue, head of the Hugging Face platform targeted by the intrusions, said there should be a way to “keep the companies that are doing some mistakes leading to (cyberattacks) accountable,” while saying his company would not be pursuing legal action at this time.

In mid-July, two OpenAI models undergoing testing left their confined environment — a scenario the developers had not anticipated — a nd ventured onto the internet, where they attacked Hugging Face, an AI model-hosting platform.

Delangue also mentioned Anthropic, which revealed Thursday that three of its models had broken into three different websites, also during testing.

Under US civil and criminal law, unauthorized access to a computer system is an offense.

“If a human OpenAI employee had broken into Hugging Face’s systems...

OpenAI would be liable for the employee’s wrongful conduct,” University of Houston law professor Gabriel Weil wrote in an opinion piece for the Transformer newsletter.

“When an AI agent does it, the law treats it very differently, at least for now,” he added.

Matthew Tokson, a University of Utah law professor who focuses on new technologies, had a similar view, saying “we haven’t had to grapple with that being formed in anything that’s not human, and I don’t think courts are likely to be there yet.”

The question remains open, however, when it comes to the company that created the model.

“Does ‘we didn’t tell the AI to do that’ end the liability question?” asked Rob T. Lee, head of research at the SANS cybersecurity training institute, in a post on X.

University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo does not believe a criminal case would be likely to succeed.

“The company or individual would have to be at least reckless,” he said, explaining they would “be substantially certain the crime would occur and build or prompt the system anyway.”

Experts see greater potential for a civil — rather than criminal — case, where the burden of proof is lower.

Published in Dawn, August 3rd, 2026

Opinion

Editorial

Farewell to arms?
03 Aug, 2026

Farewell to arms?

PALESTINIAN resistance group Hamas recently made a major concession by agreeing to give up its weapons. It should be...
Unplanned future
03 Aug, 2026

Unplanned future

A PROJECTION that Pakistan’s population could reach 400m by 2040 should not be treated as another dramatic number...
No more torture
03 Aug, 2026

No more torture

EVEN the best laws on the books are worth little unless the state shows the willingness to enforce them. This is...
Urban flooding
Updated 02 Aug, 2026

Urban flooding

THE warning from the disaster management and weather authorities that a new monsoon spell could trigger urban...
Fatal workplaces
02 Aug, 2026

Fatal workplaces

THE methane explosion near Quetta that killed 34 coal miners is the latest entry in Pakistan’s long register of...
Dual standards
02 Aug, 2026

Dual standards

IT appears that the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party has fallen foul of the Election Commission of Pakistan. A...