When it comes to responsibility, usually we consider a person intentionally doing something that they reasonably believe will have some consequence as responsible for that consequence. Especially when the primary reason they took the action was to generate the consequence. Excuces of the form "Technically i didn't do it, i just knowingly did something for the explicit purpose of triggering some downstream consequence" generally do not fly.
Yet, hopefully we can agree that sql injections are illegal.
You are authorized to do what the user agreed to, no more. Further the agreement must be reasonable. Exploiting the victims system to intentionally cause harm isn't reasonable.
F-secure once included a clause to use their wifi that you "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." It was funny, but not legally enforceable and would have offered them no legal shelter if they'd gone out on a kidnapping spree that night.
If we're slicing on technicalities, there's a lot of ways to decide. "PROSECUTE THEM!" seems like an extremely hostile one when the website and readme and release notes said "don't do this" already. The agent ignored those things? Is that the author's fault?
Say I lay a log on a road which you can clearly see and avoid but choose to drive over and crash your car, that’s prompt injection.
One is way worse than the other.
The prosecution wouldn't even blink if you pointed this out.
Unless the perpetrator intended for that to be the effect.
Have you heard about mens rea?
It turns random logging into laying logs onto a road intending to harm someone with the foreknowledge that they will harm the target and as a consequence any other people traveling on that road.
Terrorism charges and straight to gitmo.
Is writing a prompt in your blog any different from laying a hunting trap on your own property and catching someone's pet? Are you liable for the pet wandering on your property?
Start laying hazards in the middle of the road and see how quickly the police introduce you to things like “reckless endangerment” and “involuntary manslaughter”. The general social contract is that you don’t take actions with the intent of causing harm to others regardless of whether the victim could have avoided the harm had they taken different actions.