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

Published
0
OpenAI's logo is seen in this illustration taken February 8, 2025. — Reuters/File
OpenAI's logo is seen in this illustration taken February 8, 2025. — Reuters/File

NEW YORK: Recent cyberattacks carried out autonomously by two rogue OpenAI artificial intelligence models raise 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 — and 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, unauthorised 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

Talks, at last
Updated 03 Oct, 2026

Talks, at last

The government’s constant threats to suspend KP’s elected dispensation over a political protest have escalated hostilities considerably. In that context, both sides did well to start talking.
IWT’s future
Updated 03 Oct, 2026

IWT’s future

TOGETHER with the Kashmir dispute, India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty has become the biggest...
Pained minds
03 Oct, 2026

Pained minds

IN Pakistan, mental healthcare is wedged between two extremes — a luxury or a stigma. Estimates cited by the...
Risks ahead
Updated 02 Oct, 2026

Risks ahead

To think that the government would rather push out an elected government than grant a single prisoner some facilities does not square up rationally.
Exit from Iraq
02 Oct, 2026

Exit from Iraq

AMERICAN and British troops have once again shipped out of Iraq. On Wednesday, the foreign forces left the Arab...
Lahore’s ozone warning
02 Oct, 2026

Lahore’s ozone warning

LAHORE has received another warning that its air pollution crisis cannot be treated as a problem that begins with...