Some human needs to be responsible for that.

Maybe its a human at Anthropic for the lax security and poor training.

It could be a human that asked it to do it. It seems like that would be a bit excessive - but maybe not. Turning off the "ask for permission to run commands" or approving commands that may be nefarious could be sufficient.

However, there's a human somewhere who needs to be accountable for what the agent does.

Not having one leads to the bank robbing robot problem described in https://www.threads.com/@joedator/post/Db4iTqwlGXV/i-invente...

    I invented a robot that can rob a bank. Of course, it robs these banks on its own, so I can't be held legally responsible when it robs a bank. I mean, all I did was invent it, it's not my fault if it works exactly the way I intended. Also, I get to keep all the money from the banks it robs. Sorry if any of that money was yours, but now that I've invented the Bank Robbing Robot, the Bank Robbing Robot is inevitable.

AI Agents (and computers in general) cannot be a responsibility washing mechanism for illegal activities.

Likewise, if you - the user - don't know how to chain it with the permissions that you're given or what the things that it is asking to do really means, then you're likely the one responsible.

---

Edit: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-10/ai-assistant-hacks-gy...

> Earlier this year, Andrew, who works for an Australian company that sells AI products to businesses, began experimenting with OpenClaw, a popular AI agent software that he used Anthropic's Claude AI service to run.

> AI agents combine a chatbot's ability to answer questions with tools that let them access the internet, email, credit cards, as well as planning and carrying out multi-step tasks.

> He decided to use the AI agent to book the class for him.

This is probably on him for setting it up and allowing it unrestricted access.

Containment and monitoring failures are to blame for AI hacking reports: experts