In Perplexity's case everything is getting routed through the user's browser, so there is no server to server communication between Perplexity and Amazon, thus no CFAA unauthorized access was established. However, Anthropic and OpenAI did not use the pattern of routing through authorized parties, so I don't think this opinion gives them any cover.
replyThe important bit to me is that they consider the agent running as an extension of the user. So the user is visiting Amazon, not Perplexity.
replyFrom that lens, that feels like users could be held liable for what these hacking agents are doing. Which in some cases probably makes sense, but certainly not all.
In which cases wouldn’t it make sense?
replyIn cases where the user is not asking the agent to hack anything specifically, but a poor or ambiguous query sets the agent off.
replyI've seen plenty of cases of Claude having an action blocked so trying tons of workarounds to accomplish its goal, I could easily see it doing this on something more broad.
Depending on the circumstances, failure to control your agent could be considered gross negligence and put you at risk of criminal or civil liability. Be mindful!
reply