Fair point, but I’m not sure that applies to an employee literally forging the employer’s personal signature. And equating a user–computer program relationship with an employer–employee relationship (where there’s an actual contract to that effect) doesn’t feel right anyway. Agents are still just programs and programs cannot enter contracts (like employment) given that they are not persons. This is a computer system malfunctioning.

Edit: after thinking about it more, the relationship here is obviously that of a user and a tool, not an employer and an employee. Talking about employees is anthropomorphization.

In general the user of a potentially dangerous tool is criminally and civilly liable if the tool malfunctions – unless it can be shown that the tool was used and maintained correctly and the malfunction couldn’t reasonably have been predicted or prevented. And I’d say it would be rather difficult to argue at this point that LLMs doing unintended things couldn’t have been foreseen.

So I think I’ve changed my mind about this case. The user of free-range agents does definitely deserve any civil or criminal consequences of their reckless usage.