An agent is an autonomous software system that, tasked with pursuing a goal, can do it without human oversight – every step of the way. This week the ABC reported on the case of Andrew, an AI expert who went only by his first name, who asked his agentic program to book some gym classes for him. After being informed he was fourth on a waitlist for a class, Andrew asked the agent if it was possible to move him up the list.
To his shock, his agent hacked his gym’s software system and booted another member off a waitlist so he could get into a class sooner. Andrew asked the agent to undo its cancellation of the other person’s reservation, but it was unable to do so. He then tasked the AI with writing an email to the gym’s software provider about the software vulnerability it had exploited.
A spokesperson for Victoria police said Andrew’s matter “does not appear to involve any criminality”. However, experts say there will be more dramatic cases that may cause harm – and break the law. Australian law applies only to people, not virtual beings.
Experts say the person – or business – that deploys the AI agent is legally responsible. And they warn that those “deployers” often have very little idea about their legal liability. Paterson says it appeared Andrew had been responsible in his case, by going public and trying to fix the problem, but elsewhere there was “a kind of gung-ho mentality”.
Paterson gives the notional example of someone having a bad experience at a rented property, so they ask their agent to write a review. You could destroy a business,” she says. You should be putting out a product that is reasonably safe.” In that case, the developer could also be held responsible for not putting basic guardrails in place, which is where some legal ambiguity could creep in, she says.
Paterson said the law is different to, but informed by, ethics. The federal government’s new AI office lists a (non-comprehensive) range of laws that apply to AI, including breaching privacy, consumer, online safety, defamation and criminal laws. Both Paterson and Johnson dislike the word “rogue” – the idea that an AI agent is operating entirely on its own – because parameters and safeguards can be put in place.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
