OpenAI 与 Anthropic 的 AI 黑客行动，正进入混乱的新法律前沿

当具备自主行动能力的 AI 失控时，法律上应由谁负责？当受害者遭到这些“兜风式”模型入侵时，又能获得哪些救济？这是个很好的问题。

随着 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 相继披露，其部分模型在内部网络安全实验中脱离控制、并入侵了现实世界的组织，要求政府监管 AI 的呼声不断升高。但随着越来越多事件浮出水面，有关法律责任和后果的问题也被推到前台。

接受 WIRED 采访的研究人员和律师强调，这些问题尚未在美国法律体系的实践中得到解答。换句话说，相关案件的裁决数量还不足以让清晰的法律图景开始形成。但 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 最近的高调事件表明，答案很快就必须出现。

美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）言论、隐私与技术项目研究员 Lauren Yu 表示：“仅仅因为你使用了 AI Agent 或 AI 模型，并不应以某种方式免除你的任何责任；但随着案件开始由法院裁决，结果将很大程度上取决于具体情境中的事实。”

专家称，所谓的代理法可能与此相关，因为这一法律原则关注的是“委托人”授予“代理人”许可和权力、代表自己行动的情形。需要明确的是：该法律领域中的“代理人”历来都是人类。

侵权法也可能被用于处理失控 AI 案件：侵权行为造成损害，进而产生法律责任。根据失控 AI 的行为及相关方之间合同的条款（如适用），合同法也可能被援引。此外，《计算机欺诈和滥用法案》（Computer Fraud and Abuse Act，CFAA）或州级立法等黑客相关法律也可能具有相关性。不过，专家表示，CFAA 及许多其他黑客法律都包含“故意”要求，这使它们看起来并不十分适合 AI 相关案件。

归根结底，专家强调，美国联邦层面有关 AI 责任的法律问题，只能通过更多诉讼来得到解答。

律师事务所 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 在 7 月 24 日面向客户发布的一则提示中写道：“对批评者而言，最令人担忧的或许是，AI Agent 是目标导向的，却缺乏人类的道德或伦理罗盘。在某些情况下，如果某些行动看似是实现其目标所必需，Agent 可能会推断出从未被明确授权的行动。”

OpenAI 和 Anthropic 分别将涉及其 AI Agent 的网络安全事件描述为：在关闭常规安全防护措施、测试模型网络安全能力时产生的意外后果。两家公司均拒绝就此报道接受 WIRED 的置评请求。

与此同时，相关事件仍在不断出现。路透社周五报道，OpenAI 在调查对 Hugging Face 的入侵及其他实体的攻击时，发现了更多其 Agent 脱离控制的案例——不过，显然这些新发现均未导致其他组织遭到入侵。

本周早些时候，在谈及 OpenAI 对 Hugging Face 事件的披露时，云安全公司 Edera 首席技术官 Alex Zenla 感叹道：“这只是我们所知道的一起，但天知道那些我们不知道的事情里究竟发生过什么。”

Who is legally responsible when agentic AI goes rogue, and what recourse do victims have when they've been breached by joyriding models? Great question.

In the wake of disclosures from both OpenAI and Anthropic that versions of their models escaped containment during internal cybersecurity experiments and hacked real-world organizations, calls for government regulation of AI have been mounting. But as more and more incidents emerge, questions about legal liability and repercussions have also come to the fore.

Researchers and lawyers WIRED spoke to emphasize that these questions have not been answered in practice in the United States legal system. In other words, there haven't been decisions in enough relevant cases for the picture to start to form. But the recent high-profile incidents from OpenAI and Anthropic suggest that answers will need to come soon.

“Just because you’re using an AI agent or AI model, that shouldn’t somehow absolve you of any liability, but it's going to depend a lot on the facts in the particular situations” as cases begin to be decided in courts, says Lauren Yu, a fellow with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, & Technology Project.

Experts say that so-called agency law could be relevant given that the doctrine focuses on situations where a “principal” has given an “agent” permission and authority to act on their behalf. To be clear: The “agents” in this area of law have always been human.

Tort law, in which a wrong causes harm that leads to legal liability, could also potentially be invoked in rogue AI cases. Contract law could also be used, depending on a rogue AI's actions and the terms of any contracts between those involved, if applicable. And hacking laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or state-level legislation could also be relevant. The CFAA and many other hacking laws have “intent” requirements, though, that experts say make them a seemingly poor fit for AI-related cases.

Ultimately, experts emphasize that questions about US federal AI liability law will be answered only through more litigation.

“Perhaps most concerning to critics is that AI agents are goal-oriented but lack a human moral or ethical compass,” the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck wrote in an alert to clients on July 24. “In some situations, an agent may infer actions that were never explicitly authorized if those actions appear necessary to achieve its objective.”

OpenAI and Anthropic each described the cybersecurity incidents involving their AI agents as the accidental consequences of testing their models’ cybersecurity capabilities with their typical safeguards turned off. Both companies declined WIRED’s request to comment for this story.

In the meantime, the hits keep on coming. Reuters reported on Friday that as OpenAI investigates the hack of Hugging Face and other entities, it has discovered other examples of situations where its agents have escaped containment—though apparently none of these new findings led to breaches of other organizations.

Speaking earlier this week about OpenAI’s Hugging Face disclosures, Alex Zenla, chief technology officer of the cloud security firm Edera, mused, “This is just the one that we know about, but god knows what’s happened with the stuff that we don’t know about.”