What’s the good argument that I’m not responsible for the actions of my agents?

For example, lack of clarity on ownership and control. When an entity A runs an agent X designed by an entity B hosted by entity C (and potentially interacting with agents X2, X3 with their own web of control) it is not clear where the responsibility for the action of X is.

I know there is a strong desire to stick it to <pick an evil AI overlord>, but for the law to be useful (and, ideally, at least somewhat fair) we need a good legal framework. Which we do not have right now; otherwise people and NGOs would be shaking that tree already even if the government is not doing that.

This has all been figured out using existing laws. In the US entity A is responsible for what they do and they can subrogate if they think others are responsible.

I’m not sure it ever makes sense to just throw up our hands and hold A harmless because their agents also use agents and it’s complicated.

Try hiring a consulting company A who subs to entity B who subs to entity C. When A does something criminal, do you think it matters if it’s actually employees or entity B or entity C. A is responsible. It may be that others are as well.

If this is the case, why there are no high visibility claims being made on Anthropic? We have a very rich company that (assuming your responsibility argument holds) admits hacking. Why aren't lawyers calling potential victims, exploring class action options, etc. to shake out some money?

I suspect this is because the responsibility is not nearly settled. If I am wrong, would love to get a rebuttal, ideally with references.

There are similar reports for anthropic. [0] I thunk it’s hard to know how much this happens because reporting is spotty. I think the openai and anthropic ones are publicized because they want to juice their IPOs.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7dl7w8y7po